The Supreme Court is Asking for the US Government's Opinion on Texas and Florida's Social Media Laws

The US Supreme Court has asked the Biden administration for input on Florida and Texas laws that would restrict the editorial discretion of social media platforms in a First Amendment showdown.

Two industry groups are challenging the Republican-backed laws, saying they would impose onerous requirements and put platforms at risk of being overrun by spam and bullying. The Texas law would bar large platforms from discriminating based on viewpoint, while the Florida statute would require a “thorough rationale” for every content-moderation decision.

Texas, Florida, and the trade associations representing Meta Platforms Inc., Alphabet Inc.'s Google, and Twitter Inc. have all asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

The proposed laws could have a serious impact on social media websites and the way they provide their services to users, according to trade groups NetChoice LLC and the Computer & Communications Industry Association. They argue that people use and companies advertise on social media websites because of the time and effort that goes into organizing and presenting the vast amount of information on them.

Governors Ron DeSantis of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas say that measures are needed to keep conservative voices from being silenced. DeSantis said when signing his state's bill into law in May 2021 that if Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable.

Abbott spoke out against what he saw as a dangerous trend of social media companies silencing conservative viewpoints and ideas when he signed the Texas measure into law four months later.

The video in question was uploaded by anti-vaccination activist Larry Cook, who claimed that it showed a baby being vaccinated against their will. However, Vimeo removed the video after receiving complaints from users. Cook then filed a lawsuit against Vimeo, claiming that the removal of his video violated his free speech rights. However, the Supreme Court has now rejected Cook's appeal, upholding Vimeo's decision to remove the video.

The justices sent their request to Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer. The high court is already considering stripping companies of some of their legal immunity by allowing lawsuits when platforms recommend dangerous content to their users.

On Monday, the court refused to revive a lawsuit over Vimeo Inc.'s removal of six videos that claimed vaccines cause autism. This is a separate social media case.

The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has blocked most of Florida's law on campaign finance, saying it probably violates the First Amendment. The 5th Circuit in New Orleans upheld a similar law in Texas in September, but left it on hold while an appeal to the Supreme Court is pending.

Texas's ban on viewpoint discrimination is one of the most sweeping of its kind. The prohibition includes a handful of exceptions, allowing platforms to bar content that incites violence or criminal activity, or that concerns the sexual exploitation of children or harassment of sexual abuse survivors.

The Texas law also imposes a number of operational and disclosure requirements, such as procedures for user complaints and disclosure of content- and data-management practices. Furthermore, companies must publish a sweeping biannual "transparency report."

The law, which was passed in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, applies to platforms with more than 50 million monthly users. This threshold exempts conservative social media sites, such as Parler and Gab, from the law.

The Florida law includes a dozen major provisions, including the requirement that platforms provide a detailed explanation of any decision that “deplatforms,” “censors” or “shadow bans” any user. The 11th Circuit called that provision “particularly onerous.”

The law also bars platforms from banning political candidates or “journalistic enterprises.” As with Texas, the Florida law applies only to the biggest social media companies.

Former President Donald Trump has filed a brief in support of the state, urging the high court to uphold provisions that require platforms to publish their standards and apply their rules “in a consistent manner.”

The case in Texas is NetChoice v. Paxton, while the case in Florida is Moody v. NetChoice. Both cases involve the question of whether certain state laws regulating online businesses are constitutional.