Supreme Court to hear cases on Florida, Texas social media

[Tennesseer]

Thoughts?

Supreme Court to hear cases on Florida, Texas social media laws

The Supreme Court on Friday announced it will hear two cases stemming from controversial laws in Texas and Florida regulating social media platforms’ content moderation decisions.

The laws aim to prohibit social media companies from banning users based on political views, even if users violate platform policies, essentially limiting companies from being able to enforce their own policies.

The high court will consider whether the laws’ content moderation restrictions and their “individualized-explanation requirements” are compliant with the First Amendment.

Any outcome at the Supreme Court could have resounding implications for online speech after two lower courts, the 5th Circuit and 11th Circuit appeals courts, had conflicting opinions on blocking and upholding the two states’ similar laws.

The laws were challenged in court by two tech industry groups, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice. They said the social media laws violate private companies’ First Amendment right to decide what speech to host.

Rest of article here: Supreme Court to hear cases on Florida, Texas social media laws

[laterbloomer]

Okay, just so I'm tracking this...what used be lies became alternative facts and are now to be called political views. Racism, sexism, homophobia...all now considered political views. Have I got that right?

[tallguy]

Back when we moderated the MSN boards, how many times did we explain to people, "No, you do not have either First Amendment or free speech rights here.  This is a private company providing a forum and they can limit whatever they want.  That is why we have a Code of Conduct.  If you don't like it, go find somewhere you like better."

If you want to find stupid and ill-conceived legislation, going to Texas and Florida are pretty safe bets to start with.   
 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 29, 2023 8:53:20 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Thoughts?

Supreme Court to hear cases on Florida, Texas social media laws

The Supreme Court on Friday announced it will hear two cases stemming from controversial laws in Texas and Florida regulating social media platforms’ content moderation decisions.

The laws aim to prohibit social media companies from banning users based on political views, even if users violate platform policies, essentially limiting companies from being able to enforce their own policies.

The high court will consider whether the laws’ content moderation restrictions and their “individualized-explanation requirements” are compliant with the First Amendment.

Any outcome at the Supreme Court could have resounding implications for online speech after two lower courts, the 5th Circuit and 11th Circuit appeals courts, had conflicting opinions on blocking and upholding the two states’ similar laws.

The laws were challenged in court by two tech industry groups, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice. They said the social media laws violate private companies’ First Amendment right to decide what speech to host.

Rest of article here: Supreme Court to hear cases on Florida, Texas social media laws

my thoughts?  my thoughts are that this article, at least what you posted, does not point out that there are no "online speech" rights, except at public sites.  and by public, i don't mean "accessible by the publc", i mean "OWNED by the public".

this is WILDLY overreaching legislation.  resounding is not even close for me.  the SCOTUS should not even HEAR this case, unless a lower court decided IN FAVOR of this legislation.  in which case, they should act to overturn it.

[djAdvocate]

The laws were challenged in court by two tech industry groups, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice. They said the social media laws violate private companies’ First Amendment right to decide what speech to host.



The tech groups cheered the court’s decision to hear the cases.



“This order is encouraging. It is high time that the Supreme Court resolves whether governments can force websites to publish dangerous content. Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the Court,” CCIA President Matt Schruers said in a statement.



“Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit,” NetChoice litigation director Chris Marchese said in a statement. “The internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship. We are confident the Court will agree.”

i am discouraged that the court thinks that resolving this is "interesting".  i think it is pretty boring.  the case law goes back centuries on this.  the only thing different it "on line".  when newspapers screened opinion pieces using their standards, nobody said a word about it.  now, suddenly, with the internet, this has become "interesting"?  i don't think so.

the idea that we give free speech to those most likely to take it away is Hobbsian.  free speech laws only apply to public discourse, and are designed to prevent the STATE from intervening.  the 5th circuit judge should be impeached for his ruling, as he has no understanding or appreciation of the 1st amendment.

[djAdvocate]

PS- the article covered the main issue, so i retract that criticism of the OP.