Supreme Court considers Texas and Florida laws that could set the future of online speech
HOUSTON - The Supreme Court is now deciding the fate of very-similar laws, from Texas and Florida, that could shape the future of online speech. The laws were written in the wake of former President Donald Trump being banned from Twitter.
They would, generally, prevent social media platforms from limiting political viewpoints, but justices appeared concerned about how far such a practice could go.
SUGGESTED: Lakewood Church shooting captured on body cam and surveillance
Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson was clear, in his oral arguments, that the state intended to keep the social-media square open to all points of view, and not subject to any political leanings of platform decision-makers.
"I have no idea why Congress does, or does not do (what it does), but I do know that Texas has the ability to protect Texans, and that's what Texas has done here," he said.
While the laws could also allow for unsavory viewpoints to be expressed, justices questioned whether an such a government order, against private companies was, instead, a violation of their first-amendment rights.
Lawyers representing tech companies say they need to be able to moderate content.
"I assume the implication ... is that you can tell the anti Semite, 'We're not open for business to you,' right?" asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Tech industry lawyer Paul Clement responded, "You can tell that person that our speech-forum is not open to you."
After nearly four hours of questions and answers, trade groups representing tech companies are confident justices will side with them.
"What's at stake is whether, or not, the state can come in and say, 'No, we're going to decide what content is appropriate. We're going to referee your forum.'," says Matt Schruers of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
Others though, would like to find middle ground, between censoring voices and moderating content for vulnerable users.
"If we know that there are children on platforms, children under the age of 13 on platforms, no matter what the content is, it should be very hard to access the most mature and explicit content," says Titania Jordan of the Bark parental-control app.
Justices also wondered whether private messages and e-mails could be open to restrictions. Conflicting guidance left them with much to ponder, while the laws remain sidelined until their decision expected in late June.