Why the Supreme Court punted on regulating social media
![Why the Supreme Court punted on regulating social media](https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/08/GettyImages-2111709248-e1724094610402.jpg?w=900)
When it comes to politically charged issues, the partisan, sharply divided Supreme Court justices rarely agree on anything. But they did agree last month, in Moody v. NetChoice LLC, a case involving the First Amendment rights of internet platforms to edit third-party posts.
The dispute arose when Texas and Florida claimed their citizens’ conservative viewpoints were being censored online by Facebook, Twitter (now X) and other platforms. First Amendment alarms went off.
The two states enacted laws in 2021 curtailing the platforms’ capacity to moderate or edit user content. The laws came shortly after Facebook and Twitter ejected President Donald Trump from their platforms in the wake of the Capitol attack.
It has long been the law that the First Amendment protects “editorial discretion.” The type of content the platforms sifted out included posts supporting Nazi ideology; advocating terrorism; espousing racism, Islamophobia or antisemitism; glorifying rape or other gender-based violence; encouraging teenage suicide; discouraging the use of vaccines; advancing false claims of election fraud; and other forms of disinformation.
When Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed his state’s measure, he said, “There is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas.” In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) made the dire threat, “If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable.”
It’s hard to strike the right balance between protecting freedom of speech and controlling harmful speech. Undeniably, however, just as there is a right of freedom of speech, there is a right for online publishers to moderate content.
NetChoice is an internet trade association that brought legal actions in both states, saying the laws broadly violated the First Amendment rights of social media companies. Federal judges in Florida and Texas temporarily blocked the laws from taking effect.
As Texas appealed, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, known for its right-wing leanings, ruled that the platforms’ content-moderation activities did not rise to “speech” that would be protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the platforms didn’t have a case.
Appellate Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee who wrote the opinion, had learned his conservative ideology at the feet of the master — he was a law clerk for Justice Samuel Alito. He then got his doctorate in right-wing jurisprudence as general counsel to Gov. Abbott himself. Oldham disparaged the “large, well-heeled corporations that have hired an armada of attorneys from some of the best law firms in the world to protect their censorship rights,” as though there’s something wrong with hiring a lawyer.
Judge Kevin Newsome, however, writing for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled on the Florida law, declaring that content moderation implicated First Amendment protections for “editorial discretion.” Newsom, also a Trump appointee who had clerked for Justice David Souter, concluded that “‘content-moderation’ decisions constitute protected exercises of editorial judgment.”
With the split in the circuits, the case was obviously destined for the Supreme Court. The justices all agreed that NetChoice’s sweeping claims of unconstitutionality had fallen short and that the two cases should be sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings.
The justices were all over the lot, however, on whether Texas or Florida had the correct approach.
Veteran Supreme Court reporter Joan Biscupic had the inside scoop on what happened. Alito, while deprecating the platforms’ speech interests, emphasized the incompleteness of the record and the need to remand the cases. Joining him were fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch and, to some degree, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the other side of the bench was the liberal Elena Kagan, leaning toward the 11th Circuit’s approach. She wanted to clarify the First Amendment implications when states try to control how platforms filter messages and videos posted by users. She was largely joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh.
Alito began writing the court’s opinion for the dominant five-member bloc, and Kagan for the remaining four.
But when Alito circulated his draft opinion, questioning whether any of the platforms’ content moderation could be considered “expressive” activity under the First Amendment, his majority evaporated. Barrett, a crucial vote, believed some choices regarding content indeed reflected editorial judgments protected by the First Amendment. She became persuaded by Kagan, but she also wanted to draw lines between the varying algorithms platforms use.
“A function qualifies for First Amendment protection only if it is inherently expressive,” Barrett wrote in her concurring opinion, but the protection might not apply to algorithms that automatically present content aimed at users’ preferences.
Kagan appeared to agree. She wrote that the court was not dealing “with feeds whose algorithms respond solely to how users act online — giving them the content they appear to want, without any regard to independent content standards.”
Jackson agreed with much of Kagan’s analysis, cautioning that, “Not every potential action taken by a social media company will qualify as expression protected under the First Amendment.”
Then came Kagan’s cruncher: “When the government interferes with ... editorial choices — say, by ordering the excluded to be included — it alters the content of the compilation,” she wrote. “And in so doing — in overriding a private party’s expressive choices — the government confronts the First Amendment.”
Alito, hanging the flag upside-down, dismissed Kagan’s First Amendment pronouncements as amounting only to “nonbinding dicta,” a lawyer’s term for “rubbish.”
But, despite Alito’s protest, Kagan had a majority concurring with her decision, which, at minimum, offers lower courts a strong indication of how the majority might go in future online challenges.
At the end of the day, Alito had the backing of only two hard-right justices, Thomas and Gorsuch. He had nothing but praise for conservative states restricting social media platforms. And, like his acolyte Judge Oldham, Alito took jabs at the “sophisticated counsel” who challenged the state regulations.
The Supreme Court having ruled so inconclusively, lower court judges now must analyze the laws regulating social media — meaning more high-priced lawyers, and more litigation.
James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York’s Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin.
Date: |
Topics
-
ABC News - Tech
Dealers' paradise? How social media became a storefront for deadly fake pills as families struggle
Fentanyl overdoses have become a leading cause of death for minors in the last 5 years or so — and social media, where tainted, fake prescription drugs can be obtained with just a few clicks, is ...3 hours ago -
The Wall Street Journal - World
Fewer students who identified as Black enrolled in Harvard's class of 2028, the first group affected by the Supreme Court's ruling last summer that schools can't consider race in admissions.
Fewer students who identified as Black enrolled in Harvard’s class of 2028, the first group affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling last summer that schools can’t consider race in admissions.10 hours ago -
ABC News - Tech
Federal judge temporarily blocks Utah social media law aimed at protecting children
A federal judge in Utah temporarily blocked a social media access law aimed at protecting children’s privacy15 hours ago -
NBC News - Top stories
WNBA chief clarifies she's opposed to 'hate or racism' after response on social media abuse draws player scorn
WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert late Tuesday night clarified that she’s vehemently opposed to “hate or racism” after her response to a question about social media abuse drew criticism from ...20 hours ago -
MarketWatch - Business
Trump social-media stock ‘DJT’ tumbles after former president’s debate vs. Democrat Harris
Kamala Harris won the endorsement of Taylor Swift following the debate, with the pop megastar suggesting she had gone public about backing the vice president because a fake endorsement of Donald ...20 hours ago - Donald Trump -
The Hill - Politics
Black enrollment drops in Harvard’s freshman class after Supreme Court ruling
Harvard University released racial and ethnic data that showed a decrease in how many Black students the school admitted in its newly enrolled freshman class, the first to be affected by the ...20 hours ago -
Inc. - Business
SpaceX Puts Regulators on Blast for Red Tape Delays
SpaceX published an unusually blunt statement condemning regulatory barriers slowing down its rocket program, even as a group of lawmakers said current FAA rules were risking the nation's lead in ...22 hours ago - SpaceX -
CBS Sports - Sports
WNBPA calls out Cathy Engelbert for interview answer about social media attacks on players
WNBPA Executive Director Terri Jackson said social media harassment "demands immediate action"Yesterday -
The Guardian - World
Sudanese rebels appear to be posting self-incriminating videos of torture and arson on social media
Footage that seems to show fighters glorifying abuse of prisoners with ‘little fear of consequences’ could be used in war crimes prosecutions. Footage of rebel fighters in Sudan appearing to ...Yesterday
More from The Hill
-
The Hill - Politics
We should all be carbon supremacists
Carbon supremacists should begin by demanding to interact with a human in all transactions, and by making this part of the discussion with our elected and appointed leadership.39 minutes ago -
The Hill - Politics
Republican AG Alberto Gonzales backs Harris, warns against Trump
Former George W. Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endorsed Vice President Harris Thursday, citing in part the Supreme Court’s immunity decision in calling former President ...44 minutes ago - Donald Trump -
The Hill - Politics
Koch-affiliated Libre Initiative makes endorsements in Michigan, Connecticut
The Libre Initiative Action is rolling out endorsements for three tight congressional races on Thursday, hoping to win elections to the House and Senate for Republicans in Michigan and Connecticut. ...1 hour ago -
The Hill - Politics
Most in new survey wary of AI-powered election information
Most Americans say they don’t trust AI-powered chatbots to produce accurate information about the 2024 election, according to a new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs ...1 hour ago -
The Hill - Politics
When America welcomes refugees to its shores, we all win
The United States has long been a beacon for those fleeing war, persecution and violence. We must keep this legacy alive.1 hour ago