Posted on 01/23/2023 3:37:09 PM PST by Golden Eagle
The Supreme Court called upon the Biden administration to weigh in on cases involving Florida and Texas laws aimed at limiting what sort of content social media platforms can censor.
Litigation over Florida's SB 7072 and Texas's HB 20 pit the states' goal of maintaining the free expression of ideas online – amid concern that social media giants unfairly censor conservative ideas – and social media companies' own free speech interests in being able to keep and remove content on their own sites.
"The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States," the Supreme Court said in a one-sentence order Monday morning.
Florida's law has been on hold ever since a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction, and the Eleventh Circuit kept the law on hold in rulings in two cases, both involving internet free speech advocacy group NetChoice. The Sunshine State turned to the Supreme Court in October, hoping the high court will lift the injunction.
The Texas law requires social media platforms to disclose information about their content and data management, as well as business practices including how it goes about targeting content for users and moderating content. It also provides for a notice and appeal process when a platform removes content posted by a user due to a violation of its terms of use.
Florida's law is more specific, prohibiting a social media from deplatforming political candidates or any "journalistic enterprise." It also, like Texas's law, requires platforms to be transparent in their content moderation practices. To the extent that any platform censors, deplatforms, or shadowbans, it has to do so "in a consistent manner among its users," and be transparent about its algorithms.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Florida’s law is more specific, prohibiting a social media from deplatforming political candidates or any “journalistic enterprise.”
*********************************************************
I can’t imagine them trying to undercut Florida’s law in this, let the Supremes take that one up.
Invite???? How about “allow”? If they want to weigh in they can...and the court may,or may not,consider their input.
Sounds like the Supreme Court has been corrupted. I had my deep suspicions about them anyway.
The court should only look at social media cases and platforms as...
If it becomes a widely used and public forum, then, it should adhere very closely to what the constitution/first-amendment says, and that is that, free speech should not be abridged. Therefore, all social media platforms that have content that is read far and wide and by the public at large, cannot be protected from limiting free speech.
Blocking and preventing and hiding and banning the free speech rights of the public, just because it’s ‘privately’ owned media source, is just an excuse to prevent people from exercising their free speech rights. When the general public has access to a newspaper and/or social media site, it behooves that source to abide by the rights afforded to the people by the constitution and bill of rights. No excuses about ‘privately owned;. That’s just a rationalization to stop people from expressing themselves. It it needs to be private, then, don’t allow the general public to view or read or comment on the content, just like email at a company is protected from the general public.
Interesting.
Texas and Florida should follow California’s lead and tell the feds to pound sand.
Disgusting. The Supremes are literally begging the button and restoration to jump in and oppose this. If the Biden ministration doesn’t care enough to get involved in the case on their own, why in the hell is it the job of the supreme court to try to go them into it? Banana republic.
Privately owned went out the window when the fascist arrangement between the government and big tech was fully exposed. Government and big tech are in a partnership, and constantly communicate with each other on censorship issues. At this point, I think it should be a legal presumption that big tech is operating as a wing of government, and they should have to abide by the first amendment. If they don’t like that, they can cut their ties with government in a public manner. That would be demonstrated by the openly allowing wide ranging free speech for conservatives.
Inviting them so the SCOTUS can slap down Biden while upholing FL and TX. Roberts is on our side on this.
The Supreme Court proved themselves to be worthless when they refused to hear states cases about the 2020 election. “No standing” my a**. They became dead and useless with that determination.
Well, I actually had my doubts about them before that, but that kind of drove it home that I was over the target regarding the Supreme Court, for sure.
I guess the protesters have spooked them to Kingdom come. From here on, they will make stupid rulings because of fear. It’s all by design by the evil left swamp.
Caving to bullies only increases the attacks by bullies, not only in numbers, but intensity as well.
If the Biden administration chose not to get involved in this case, why is SCOTUS prompting them to?
I seriously doubt they would have extended that option to President Trump.
Bkmk
More SC tomfoolery
Exactly.
.
It is a conundrum with no real easy answer, though, IMHO.
Either a platform has to disallow some speech or they allow any vile spew at all.
If they let anyone post anything- including defamation of character, calls for violence, insurrection, or the harming of others, obscenities- and make it available to anyone then many elements in society will justifiably be upset. Not me so much, but even then, if someone were to post threats to me or my livelihood or family, and do so with anonymity, that would not be right.
But if they allow some speech, but disallow other speech, then they are potentially liable for the speech they *do* allow, logically, as it would seem to be that they at least tacitly endorse that speech.
And of course the fact that people can post anonymously adds another layer of complication.
Really, we’ve never had this situation until the internet. Some newspapers did allow potentially problematic screeds in the editorial pages, but the ability of all kinds of nutters to say anything , with no accountability is truly a case for SCOTUS, and of interest to everyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.