Volokh conspiracy lawyer scrgruppen
The Supreme Court has I just agreed To hear these cases, it is limited to these questions (as I explain them Brief of the Solicitor General of the Federal Government):
These cases relate to laws enacted by the states of Florida and Texas to regulate major social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly known as Twitter). The two laws differ in some ways, but both restrict platforms’ ability to engage in content moderation by removing, editing, or curating user-generated content; Requiring platforms to provide individual explanations for certain forms of content moderation; It requires public disclosures about platforms’ content moderation practices. The questions asked are:
1. Whether the restrictions on modifying the content of laws are consistent with the First Amendment.
2. Whether the requirements for individual interpretation of laws are consistent with the First Amendment.
The court declined to grant two other questions, even though they may play an indirect role in the analysis of the first two questions:
3. Whether the public disclosure provisions in the laws are consistent with the First Amendment.
4. Whether the laws violated the First Amendment because they were motivated by viewpoint discrimination.
I’m traveling today, so I don’t have much to add right now, but I thought I’d put up a blog post so my readers could discuss it. I have also written a law review article on this general topic, in Dealing with social media platforms like rideshare companies?
