Films of the Week: August 25-31 Recommendations
The Cases: Moody v. NetChoice and lindke v. Freed
The supreme Court heard oral arguments on Febuary 26, 2024, in two consolidated cases, Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and Lindke v. freed,challenging the authority of florida and Texas to regulate social media platforms’ content moderation practices. At the heart of the dispute is whether these state laws, enacted in 2023, violate the First Amendment rights of social media companies.
Florida’s law, signed by Governor Ron desantis, prohibits social media platforms with more than 200 million monthly active users from deplatforming political candidates. Texas’s law, HB 20, aims to prevent platforms from censoring
viewpoints, defining censorship broadly. Both laws were quickly challenged by NetChoice and the Computer & Communications industry Association (CCIA), representing platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube.
The Core Legal Question: Section 230 and the First amendment
The cases center on the interplay between Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the First Amendment. Section 230 generally shields online platforms from liability for content posted by their users, while also allowing them to moderate content as they see fit. The plaintiffs argue that the state laws compel platforms to host speech they would or else remove, violating their First Amendment rights to curate their own platforms.
The state of Florida contends that its law is a legitimate exercise of its power to prevent viewpoint discrimination, arguing that social media platforms act as common carriers
and should be subject to non-discrimination requirements. Texas makes a similar argument, asserting that its law protects free speech by preventing platforms from suppressing lawful viewpoints. However,the platforms and their advocates argue that treating them as common carriers would fundamentally alter their business model and stifle innovation.
Arguments Before the Court
During oral arguments, Justices across the ideological spectrum expressed skepticism about the state laws. Several Justices questioned whether the laws compel platforms to host speech they find objectionable, effectively forcing them to become mouthpieces for views they disagree with. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, suggested that the laws could require platforms to host horrible
content.
The platforms’ lawyers argued that the laws would disrupt their ability to moderate harmful content, such as hate speech and misinformation. they emphasized that content moderation is a complex process that requires editorial judgment and that the state laws would undermine their efforts to create safe and welcoming online environments.The state’s lawyers countered that the laws are narrowly tailored to address viewpoint discrimination and do not unduly burden platforms’ editorial discretion.
Key Points from Oral Arguments:
- Compelled