The Supreme Court to decide how to moderate the internet

[TwinIon]

Two cases are being heard at the supreme court that could decide how the internet gets moderated. NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice are the cases looking at Texas and Florida social media moderation laws, and all sorts of issues could be at stake. Here's SCOTUSblogs' primer on the two cases, and here's the Verge's story stream (start from the bottom).

 

Thomas seems intent on making this not only about the laws in question, but section 230. Kagan is trying to figure out if it's legal to only go after big tech. There's a lot of talk about what qualifies as a "common carrier" and if striking down these laws necessarily protects the status quo for these sites, or if it could leave them open to more regulation.

 

Personally, I think these laws are absurd and should have no chance at all of remaining on the books, but with this court you never know what they could try and sneak into the ruling. I don't expect them to take away 230 or decide on a wholly new interpretation of the first amendment, but I won't feel good about the outcome until we see it.

[Jason]

I changed the title from "decides" to "to decide" because "decides" made it sound like a decision has already come down.

[ort]

30 minutes ago, Jason said:

I changed the title from "decides" to "to decide" because "decides" made it sound like a decision has already come down.

 

Sounds like you need a Supreme Court ruling to keep your freedom hating ways in check...

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The best summary of today's proceedings: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s arguments on Texas and Florida’s social media laws and the First Amendment | CNN Politics

WWW.CNN.COM

---

The Supreme Court expressed skepticism Monday about state laws in Texas and Florida designed to stop social media giants from throttling conservative views but also suggested that whatever decision emerges may not be the court’s final word on the significant First Amendment questions raised by the case.

 

Quote

 

The Supreme Court expressed skepticism Monday about state laws in Texas and Florida designed to stop social media giants from throttling conservative views but also suggested that whatever decision emerges may not be the court’s final word on the significant First Amendment questions raised by the case.

 

During nearly four hours of oral arguments, the justices appeared divided along non-ideological lines as they wrestled with whether social media companies like Meta and X have have created a “public square” that sets them apart from other private entities.

 

The justices struggled with sweeping First Amendment questions about whether social media platforms should be treated like “common carriers,” such as telephone companies, that are required to transmit content across their networks regardless of viewpoint or whether they act more like newspaper publishers that can choose which articles to place on the front page.

 

Despite the high stakes involved and the potential to radically change how millions of Americans get their news and information on the popular sites, several of the justices appeared to be angling for a potential outcome that would keep the laws on hold temporarily and allow lower courts to further review the impact on a wide range of internet sites.

 

 

Quote

 

How far does the First Amendment reach when it comes to social media?

 

Online platforms engage in censorship when they silence certain users’ speech, the states argued to the court.

 

But multiple justices challenged that claim, pointing out that the First Amendment only prevents governments from restricting speech, not private businesses. In fact, the tech industry argued, government requirements that social media not moderate content would violate the platforms’ own First Amendment freedoms from government meddling.

 

Without the power to dump users or posts, the industry argued, social media sites might be forced to give greater airtime to misinformation and hate speech — and their own expressions against those ills would be silenced.

 

Those arguments appeared to divide at least some of the court’s conservatives. Justice Samuel Alito pressed the lawyer representing the Biden administration on why, when a social media company takes down a post, that shouldn’t be described as “censorship” rather than “content moderation.” Alito said he worried about “the Orwellian temptation to recategorize offensive conduct in seemingly bland terms.”

 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a fellow conservative whose questions seemed to indicate support for the tech companies, responded by noting that the First Amendment’s prohibition on barring speech only applies to government action.

 

“When I think of ‘Orwellian,’ I think of the state – not the private sector, not private individuals,” Kavanaugh said. “Maybe people have different conceptions of ‘Orwellian.’”

 

 

Quote

 

Uber? Venmo? Which platforms are in play?

 

One of the central features of the arguments – particularly in the Florida case – was a debate over which internet sites are covered by the laws. Given the nature of the litigation and the speed with which it arrived at the Supreme Court – that’s not entirely clear.

 

The justices struggled with how the state laws might be applied to a long list of sites, including popular social media apps Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, but also smaller ones like LinkedIn and even sites that are not considered social media, such as Etsy, Uber, Venmo and Google search and Amazon’s cloud computing business.

 

Even if a majority of the justices agree that social media companies are engaging in First Amendment protected activity when they remove certain users or take down posts, there were many questions about whether the law also applies to sites like Uber or Venmo that perform no similar moderation.

 

Kagan, a member of the court’s liberal wing, asked why a state couldn’t bar Uber from declining to pick up riders based on political views, for instance.

 

“When you’re running Venmo you’re not engaged in speech activities and so when a state says to you, “You know what, you have to serve everybody irrespective of whether you like their political opinions or not,’ then it seems you have a much less good argument,” Kagan told the attorney representing the tech industry. “This statute also says that, doesn’t it?”

 

That view, echoed by both conservative and liberal justices, suggested a reluctance to toss out the laws entirely. It also suggested that some are thinking about sending the litigation back down to lower courts for further review on those points. In that case, the court would likely keep the laws on hold temporarily.

 

 

Quote

 

Section 230 features prominently in arguments

 

One question kept coming up during the arguments, just as it has in lower courts: What these state laws could mean for Americans’ overall ability to sue social media companies over content moderation.

 

The state laws explicitly allow users to sue tech platforms for alleged censorship. But Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 federal law, shields tech platforms from exactly these types of lawsuits — raising questions about how the laws by Texas and Florida might interact with or be preempted by what has become a bipartisan punching bag.

 

Members of both political parties have railed on Section 230, but for different reasons. Conservatives argue the law lets platforms get away with censorship, while liberals say it gives social media companies a free pass to allow hate speech and other obscene content on their platforms.

 

If the court sides with the states in these cases, it could indirectly have broad and potentially unforeseen consequences for the scope of Section 230, said Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

 

“If what we say about this is that this is speech that’s entitled to First Amendment protection, I do think then that has Section 230 implications for another case,” she said. “And so it’s always tricky to write an opinion when you know there might be landmines that would affect things later.”

 

 

[SuperSpreader]

If you can't be forced to make a gay wedding cake you can't be forced to keep a post on your platform.

[marioandsonic]

How fucked is the Internet if the SCOTUS rules how I think they will?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

7 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

How fucked is the Internet if the SCOTUS rules how I think they will?

 

The majority of the justices appear to side with the companies when it comes to the issue of "content moderation" which has a direct First Amendment implication.  

 

Where things get "messy" involves those features of social media platforms that do not have such a related First Amendment implication such as email and messaging:

 

From the NBC News article:

 

Quote

 

As the argument session unfolded it appeared clear that justices were concerned the laws could apply well beyond the traditional social media giants to companies like Uber and Etsy that allow some user-created content.

 

Similarly, some social media companies, including Facebook, allow direct messaging. One of the biggest tech companies, YouTube owner Google, operates the Gmail email service.

 

Application of the laws against direct messaging or email services would not raise the same free speech concerns, and justices seemed hesitant about blocking the laws entirely.

 

"It makes me a little nervous," said conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

 

 

[Jason]