The Supreme Court keeps on hold efforts in Texas and Florida to regulate social media platforms

The Supreme Court has maintained its hold on efforts in Texas and Florida to restrict how Facebook, TikTok, Twitter (now X), YouTube, and other social media platforms regulate user-posted content.

The cases were sent back to lower courts following challenges from trade associations representing these companies. While the specifics differ, both states aimed to address concerns from conservatives about perceived bias and censorship by these platforms, particularly against right-wing viewpoints. This term, the justices are grappling with various cases that examine free speech standards in the digital era.

The laws in Florida and Texas were enacted after Facebook and Twitter (now X) banned former President Donald Trump due to his posts related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Trade associations representing the platforms filed federal lawsuits arguing that these laws violated their speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida’s law, while another upheld Texas’ law, both pending Supreme Court review.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis described the law as protection against Silicon Valley elites, while Texas Governor Greg Abbott framed it as safeguarding free speech in the modern public forum. Both expressed concerns over what they perceived as censorship of conservative views on social media.

Since then, significant changes have occurred, including Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter (now X), which has altered its content moderation policies, reinstated previously banned users, and allowed the spread of controversial theories.

President Joe Biden’s administration supported the challengers but urged the court to issue a narrow ruling preserving the government’s authority to regulate for competition, data privacy, and consumer protection. Former President Trump’s lawyers filed a brief in support of Florida’s law.

These cases are part of a broader series the justices have faced recently involving social media platforms. Last week, the court dismissed a lawsuit accusing federal officials of pressuring platforms to silence conservative viewpoints.

During February arguments, justices indicated a tendency to prevent the laws from taking effect. They likened social media platforms more to newspapers, which enjoy extensive free speech protections, rather than common carriers like telephone companies subject to broader regulation.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas expressed more openness to the states’ arguments, with Thomas suggesting the platforms seek constitutional protection for censorship, and Alito equating content moderation with censorship. Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on other businesses like e-commerce sites and messaging services.