Marshall Chair of Constitutional Law Randy Beck has provided insight on the cases Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, which are pending decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“These cases challenge Texas and Florida laws regulating content moderation policies on large social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube). Both states have rules that limit the ability of the platforms to censor, hide or ban users and that require individualized explanation for actions taken."
At oral argument, several justices appeared inclined to view the Texas and Florida laws as violations of the First Amendment rights of social media companies. Content moderation policies were compared to editorial decisions made by newspapers. Private newspaper publishers have a constitutional right to make editorial decisions about whether to publish articles, letters, or comments submitted by members of the public. Similarly, under this perspective, the First Amendment would grant social media companies the right to decide whether certain posts should be allowed on their platform or whether access to a post should be restricted in some manner.
"If the Court interprets the First Amendment in the manner suggested at oral argument," Beck continued, "social media companies would be able to compete based in part on how they moderate content. Some companies would seek customers based on a relatively unfiltered ability to post, while other platforms would appeal to users who want more shielding from potentially objectionable content."
Beck is available for further commentary at rbeck@uga.edu.