5 Supreme Court cases to watch in 2024
Social media censorship
Last September, the high court announced it would hear oral arguments in the cases of NetChoice v. Moody and NetChoice v. Paxton, which centers on whether Texas and Florida can pass laws barring social media platforms from censoring conservative viewpoints.
Regarding Florida, the litigation pertains to Senate Bill 7072, also called the "Stop Social Media Censorship Act." Signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May 2021, the measure allows social media users to sue platforms they believe wrongfully censored them.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
A district court issued an injunction blocking the law, while a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld much of the block in a ruling released in May 2022.
"We hold that it is substantially likely that social-media companies — even the biggest ones — are 'private actors' whose rights the First Amendment protects," read the unanimous panel opinion.
"We further conclude that it is substantially likely that one of the law's particularly onerous disclosure provisions — which would require covered platforms to provide a 'thorough rationale' for each and every content-moderation decision they make — violates the First Amendment."
Regarding Texas, the litigation pertains to House Bill 20. Approved by Gov. Greg Abbott in September 2021. The law prohibits social media platforms with over 50 million monthly users from censoring political content the company views as disagreeable.
Although a district court found HB 20 unconstitutional, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the law in September 2022.
5th Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldman authored the majority opinion, warning that social media platforms' constitutional argument could be used to justify a broad range of censorship.
"On the platforms' view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business," he wrote.
"Today, we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. Because the district court held otherwise, we reverse its injunction and remand for further proceedings."
