Supreme Court agrees to decide messy First Amendment fight over social media 'censorship'

Groups representing social media companies say the state laws at issue would 'transform speech on the internet as we know it today.' Has social media been quick to squelch conservative views?

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that would limit the ability of platforms like Facebook, YouTube and X to moderate content – entering into a deeply partisan fray that could change the way millions of Americans interact with social media during an election year.

The state laws at issue in the cases, both of which have been temporarily blocked by federal courts, severely limit the ability of social media companies to kick users off their platforms or remove individual posts − even if those posts spread a foreign government's misinformation or provide false medical advice. Trade groups representing the nation's social media companies say the state laws would "transform speech on the internet as we know it today."

But Republican lawmakers in Texas and Florida − including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination − argue that social media companies have been too quick to throttle conservative viewpoints and too opaque in explaining how they decide what to remove. That argument reached a fever pitch in 2021, when Twitter suspended former President Donald Trump following the attack on the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Trade groups representing the companies say that the lawswould radically transform social media, making it impossible to cull foreign propaganda, harassment and misinformation. The First Amendment, they say, bars the government from compelling private entities – from newspapers to social networks – from publishing or not publishing content that it favors.

"Put simply, with minor exceptions, the government can't tell a private person or entity what to say or howto say it," a federal appeals court in Atlanta wrote in an opinion last year siding against Florida.

Ethics:Not just Clarence Thomas: Lower courts facing scrutiny over ethics, disclosures, too

But the dominant social networks have come under increasing scrutiny from some on the right and the left in recent years. Justice Clarence Thomas in 2021 compared Twitter, now known as X, and other large social media companies to communication utilities that potentially could be regulated, asserting the concentration in the industry gives digital platforms "enormous control over speech." That interpretation, if it gains traction, could open the companies up to far greater government regulation.

Social media companies have generally denied their content moderation benefits liberals or conservatives. Elon Musk, who owns X, promoted a series of tweets last year that demonstrated how executives at the company struggled with handling posts about a report on Hunter Biden's laptop before the 2020 presidential election. Musk promoted the material in an effort to bolster claims of the political left's grip over Big Tech.

Musk's predecessor, Jack Dorsey, had acknowledged the controversy two years earlier, saying that the way the company handled the story was "wrong."

The cases put social media front and center on the high court's docket and will be among the closest watched this term. The court is already wrestling several other social media cases, including two that deal with whether elected officials may block voters from their social media accounts. A similar case involving Trump made its way up to the Supreme Court but was dismissed after he left office in 2021.

Decisions in the cases are expected next year.  

At the the moment, neither the Florida nor the Texas law are in effect.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit blocked enforcement of most of Florida's law last year. But the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit backed the similar Texas law. That created a split in how appeals courts are interpreting the laws.  

In May, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court blocked Texas from enforcing its law. The decision, on the court's emergency docket, was not accompanied by an opinion.   

Impact:How the Supreme Court could alter the way Americans interact on the internet

Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissent joined by Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch in that emergency case, wrote that it is "not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies."

Contributing: Jessica Guynn