{"id":2256,"date":"2023-09-30T01:11:10","date_gmt":"2023-09-30T01:11:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cccfornews.com\/index.php\/2023\/09\/30\/supreme-court-to-review-cases-involving-social-media-censorship\/"},"modified":"2023-09-30T01:11:10","modified_gmt":"2023-09-30T01:11:10","slug":"supreme-court-to-review-cases-involving-social-media-censorship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cccfornews.com\/index.php\/2023\/09\/30\/supreme-court-to-review-cases-involving-social-media-censorship\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to Review Cases Involving Social Media Censorship"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\"\"\/<\/a>\"\"\/<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n
<\/source><\/picture>
Samuel Corum\/Getty Images<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in two cases centered on whether Texas and Florida can stop social media platforms from censoring conservative viewpoints.<\/p>\n

In a miscellaneous orders list<\/a> issued Friday morning, the high court granted writs of certiorari in the cases of NetChoice v. Moody<\/em> and NetChoice v. Paxton<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Regarding Florida, the litigation pertains to Senate Bill 7072, also known as the \u201cStop Social Media Censorship Act,\u201d which was signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May 2021, which would allow social media users to sue platforms that they believe have wrongfully censored them.<\/p>\n

\u201cMany in our state have experienced censorship and other tyrannical behavior firsthand in Cuba and Venezuela,\u201d said DeSantis in a statement<\/a> back in 2021.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable.\u201d<\/p>\n

A district court issued an injunction against the law, with a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upholding much of the injunction in a ruling<\/a> released in May 2022.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe hold that it is substantially likely that social-media companies\u2014even the biggest ones\u2014are \u2018private actors\u2019 whose rights the First Amendment protects,\u201d read the unanimous panel opinion.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe further conclude that it is substantially likely that one of the law\u2019s particularly onerous disclosure provisions\u2014which would require covered platforms to provide a \u2018thorough rationale\u2019 for each and every content-moderation decision they make\u2014violates the First Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

In September 2021, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed House Bill 20 into law, which prohibits social media platforms with over 50 million monthly users from censoring political content they disagree with.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe will always defend the freedom of speech in Texas, which is why I am proud to sign House Bill 20 into law to protect First Amendment rights in the Lone Star State,\u201d said Abbott in a statement<\/a> released at the time.<\/p>\n

\u201cSocial media websites have become our modern-day public square. They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely \u2014 but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas. That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas.\u201d<\/p>\n

Although a district court found HB 20 unconstitutional, the law was upheld<\/a> by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in September 2022.<\/p>\n

Fifth Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldman authored the majority opinion, arguing that social media platforms\u2019 constitutional argument could be used to justify a broad range of censorship.<\/p>\n

\u201cOn the platforms\u2019 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,\u201d wrote Oldman.<\/p>\n

\u201cToday 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Fifth Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick authored an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that \u201csocial media platforms engage in First Amendment-protected expression when they moderate their users\u2019 content.\u201d<\/p>\n

Southwick did agree with the majority that social media sites \u201chave taken aggressive, inconsistent positions before legislative, regulatory, and now judicial bodies about the relevance of the First Amendment to their actions.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen these Platforms, that for the moment have gained such dominance, impose their policy choices, the effects are far more powerful and widespread than most other speakers\u2019 choices,\u201d Southwick continued.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe First Amendment, though, is not withdrawn from speech just because speakers are using their available platforms unfairly or when the speech is offensive. The asserted governmental interest supporting this statute is undeniably related to the suppression of free expression. The First Amendment bars the restraints.\u201d<\/p>\n

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter <\/a> or Facebook<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Free<\/span> Religious Freedom Updates<\/h2>\n

Join thousands of others to get the FREEDOM POST<\/strong> newsletter for free, sent twice a week from The Christian Post.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n