News
First Amendment · Free Speech · Social Media Regulation · Supreme Court
The Supreme Court unanimously sent two cases challenging state laws regulating online platforms back to lower courts, clarifying that government attempts to control social media companies' content curation violate the First Amendment, a significant win for free speech online.
The cases, *Moody v. NetChoice, LLC* and *NetChoice v.
Paxton*, involved Texas and Florida laws that sought to give the government power over how large social media companies like Facebook and YouTube curate content. The Court's decision emphasized that platforms' selection, ordering, and labeling of posts constitute protected expression, akin to editorial discretion in print media.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Texas, and ACLU of Florida, along with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), had filed an amicus brief arguing these laws would replace private editorial voices with government preferences. The Court rejected the states' argument for regulating platforms to achieve "balance" or ideological neutrality, reiterating that the First Amendment prevents the government from tilting public debate.
This ruling establishes that the government cannot compel private actors to host or promote speech they prefer to exclude, even to increase viewpoint diversity. Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, stated this decision is a "win for free speech in the digital age." The decision will influence future legislative efforts, including the Kids Online Safety Act and potential Section 230 amendments.
