Internet at stake: US Supreme Court to rule on regulation of speech on social media

This week, the US Supreme Court faces two crucial cases that carry significant weight in potentially reshaping our current digital landscape. These imminent decisions can redefine how we perceive and interact with the internet as we know it.

The crucial matter under discussion on Monday is the extent of Texas and Florida’s control over social media platforms’ operations and content moderation practices, which have now become an essential part of modern American life.

At its core, the issue revolves around whether online platforms have independent control over content curation and authorisation of materials on their sites or if governments can oversee these actions.

Texas and Florida are resolute in their position to impede social media behemoths such as Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube from regulating user content, regardless of whether it contains offensive or untrue material like hate speech or election misinformation. Unfortunately for them, this mission is met with a significant hurdle that comes from the First Amendment.

If these states are granted their desired ruling, it may lead to a substantial change in the way Americans gather information. This would have significant implications for the upcoming 2024 elections and could affect multiple social media platforms, including Instagram, among others.

State law proponents claim that their legislations are constitutional since they primarily seek to regulate social media platforms’ business practices rather than restrict free speech. Conversely, detractors such as industry group NetChoice argue that these regulations could encroach upon the First Amendment rights of said platforms and possibly lead to unanticipated far-reaching outcomes.

Critics argue that these laws force platforms to treat all types of speech equally, including harmful and violent content related to elections. As a result, they are unable to effectively moderate threats directed at election officials.

The forthcoming face-off at the Supreme Court between NetChoice and Paxton, as well as Moody and NetChoice, will have a significant impact. It will establish whether states can forbid social media firms from obstructing or deleting user-generated content that goes against their guidelines on online platforms.

At the heart of these statutes lies a provision that empowers people to take legal action against technology companies for purported infringements. Even though the Texas and Florida bills are broadly stated, state representatives contend that they serve as protection against perceived suppression of conservative perspectives on social media sites—an assertion vehemently rejected by those platforms themselves.

Governor Ron DeSantis signed Florida’s SB 7072 into law in 2021, demonstrating the state’s unwavering stance. In addition to prohibiting tech platforms from suspending or banning political candidates’ accounts, it also gives users the authority to dispute apparent instances of censorship or de-platforming.

HB 20, a broad legislative piece signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas in 2021, restricts significant social media platforms from performing various expressions impeding activities. These include denying equal access or visibility to content, blocking, banning, removing, demonetizing expression-based discrimination or de-boosting any other form of entertainment-related bias. Like the corresponding Florida Act legislation, HB 20 provides individual internet users with legal remedies versus social networking forums for alleged violations as well.

Supporters of these measures assert that social media platforms are now comparable to traditional public spaces, necessitating the creation of fresh regulations designed to uphold free speech principles. Nevertheless, opponents from the tech industry argue against such laws and believe they violate the platform’s First Amendment rights by constraining their ability to moderate content at will.

The lower courts have become divided due to the legal conflict surrounding these laws. In 2022, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that social media platforms are not entitled to an unregulated First Amendment right for controlling speech; however, a different outcome was reached by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which indicated that Florida’s limitations might disregard First Amendment rights as they may force social media platforms to convey specific messages indirectly through third-party posts.

Donald Trump, the ex-president, has endorsed the idea that social media platforms are equivalent to utilities by comparing them to enterprises like telegraph firms and airlines. Conversely, the Biden team opposed this notion, spotlighting that newspapers and cable companies practice content curation protected under constitutional rights against government intervention.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading group advocating for consumers, cautions that the implementation of state regulations may lead to “ridiculous outcomes.” This could allow fraudsters, troublemakers and hateful extremists to overwhelm websites with censorship allegations. The EFF criticizes Florida’s law in particular as it obstructs anti-spam efforts by posing some spam messages as unauthorized “shadow bans” under its rules – labelling it a huge step backwards.

David Greene, EFF’s Senior Staff Attorney and Civil Liberties Director says that social media platforms must be permitted to handle content moderation without government intervention. According to Greene, granting First Amendment privileges for the curation of user-created material allows these channels to establish inclusive environments that accept diverse perspectives on various topics and beliefs.

Aside from the immediate impacts on specific websites, the decision made by the Supreme Court in regard to the NetChoice cases carries significant implications. Suppose Texas and Florida receive a favourable ruling. In that case, it has the potential to disrupt established legal norms that prevent governments from enforcing speech – which is a crucial principle protected under First Amendment rights. Opponents of laws proposed in both states warn that forcing social media platforms to accommodate all forms of expression regardless of their own preferences constitutes coerced speech and deviates greatly from current precedents set forth by First Amendment law. This raises serious concerns for those who value free speech protections.

Granting states control over large social media platforms, as proposed by some politicians, may result in the very government interference that the First Amendment was created to avoid. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press cautions that this could have serious consequences on public and political discourse since state control would disproportionately impact free expression and democratic governance.

Written by Olivier Noudjalbaye Dedingar, USA/UN Correspondent.