The Fort Worth Press - US Supreme Court hears challenges to social media laws

USD -
AED 3.673042
AFN 68.858766
ALL 88.802398
AMD 387.151613
ANG 1.799401
AOA 927.769041
ARS 961.359012
AUD 1.46886
AWG 1.8
AZN 1.70397
BAM 1.749922
BBD 2.015926
BDT 119.312844
BGN 1.750011
BHD 0.376236
BIF 2894.376594
BMD 1
BND 1.290118
BOB 6.899298
BRL 5.418691
BSD 0.998434
BTN 83.448933
BWP 13.198228
BYN 3.267481
BYR 19600
BZD 2.012526
CAD 1.35775
CDF 2871.000362
CHF 0.850342
CLF 0.033728
CLP 930.650396
CNY 7.051904
CNH 7.043005
COP 4153.983805
CRC 518.051268
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 98.657898
CZK 22.451404
DJF 177.79269
DKK 6.68204
DOP 59.929316
DZD 132.138863
EGP 48.452557
ERN 15
ETB 115.859974
EUR 0.894904
FJD 2.200804
FKP 0.761559
GBP 0.75092
GEL 2.730391
GGP 0.761559
GHS 15.696327
GIP 0.761559
GMD 68.503851
GNF 8626.135194
GTQ 7.71798
GYD 208.866819
HKD 7.790095
HNL 24.767145
HRK 6.799011
HTG 131.740706
HUF 352.160388
IDR 15160.8
ILS 3.777515
IMP 0.761559
INR 83.48045
IQD 1307.922874
IRR 42092.503816
ISK 136.260386
JEP 0.761559
JMD 156.86485
JOD 0.708504
JPY 143.90404
KES 128.797029
KGS 84.238504
KHR 4054.936698
KMF 441.350384
KPW 899.999433
KRW 1332.490383
KWD 0.30507
KYD 0.832014
KZT 478.691898
LAK 22047.152507
LBP 89409.743659
LKR 304.621304
LRD 199.686843
LSL 17.527759
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 4.741198
MAD 9.681206
MDL 17.42227
MGA 4515.724959
MKD 55.129065
MMK 3247.960992
MNT 3397.999955
MOP 8.014495
MRU 39.677896
MUR 45.880378
MVR 15.360378
MWK 1731.132286
MXN 19.416804
MYR 4.205039
MZN 63.850377
NAD 17.527759
NGN 1639.450377
NIO 36.746745
NOK 10.482404
NPR 133.518543
NZD 1.603206
OMR 0.384512
PAB 0.998434
PEN 3.742316
PGK 3.9082
PHP 55.653038
PKR 277.414933
PLN 3.82535
PYG 7789.558449
QAR 3.640048
RON 4.449904
RSD 104.886038
RUB 92.240594
RWF 1345.94909
SAR 3.752452
SBD 8.306937
SCR 13.046124
SDG 601.503676
SEK 10.170404
SGD 1.291304
SHP 0.761559
SLE 22.847303
SLL 20969.494858
SOS 570.572183
SRD 30.205038
STD 20697.981008
SVC 8.736188
SYP 2512.529936
SZL 17.534112
THB 32.927038
TJS 10.61334
TMT 3.5
TND 3.025276
TOP 2.342104
TRY 34.124875
TTD 6.791035
TWD 31.981038
TZS 2725.719143
UAH 41.267749
UGX 3698.832371
UYU 41.256207
UZS 12705.229723
VEF 3622552.534434
VES 36.777762
VND 24605
VUV 118.722009
WST 2.797463
XAF 586.90735
XAG 0.03211
XAU 0.000381
XCD 2.70255
XDR 0.739945
XOF 586.90735
XPF 106.706035
YER 250.325037
ZAR 17.38465
ZMK 9001.203587
ZMW 26.433141
ZWL 321.999592
  • RBGPF

    58.8300

    58.83

    +100%

  • GSK

    -0.8200

    40.8

    -2.01%

  • RYCEF

    0.0200

    6.97

    +0.29%

  • VOD

    -0.0500

    10.01

    -0.5%

  • CMSC

    0.0300

    25.15

    +0.12%

  • RELX

    -0.1400

    47.99

    -0.29%

  • NGG

    0.7200

    69.55

    +1.04%

  • BP

    -0.1200

    32.64

    -0.37%

  • RIO

    -1.6100

    63.57

    -2.53%

  • BTI

    -0.1300

    37.44

    -0.35%

  • JRI

    -0.0800

    13.32

    -0.6%

  • CMSD

    0.0100

    25.02

    +0.04%

  • BCC

    -7.1900

    137.5

    -5.23%

  • BCE

    -0.1500

    35.04

    -0.43%

  • AZN

    -0.5200

    78.38

    -0.66%

  • SCS

    -0.3900

    12.92

    -3.02%

US Supreme Court hears challenges to social media laws
US Supreme Court hears challenges to social media laws / Photo: © AFP

US Supreme Court hears challenges to social media laws

The US Supreme Court, in a case that could determine the future of social media, heard arguments on Monday about whether a pair of state laws that limit content moderation are constitutional.

Text size:

The justices appeared to have concerns about the scope of the laws passed by conservative Republican lawmakers in Florida and Texas in a bid to stem what they claim is political bias by the big tech companies.

"I have a problem with laws like this that are so broad that they stifle speech just on their face," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal.

Florida's measure bars social media platforms from pulling content from politicians, a law that was passed after former president Donald Trump was suspended from Twitter and Facebook in the wake of the January 6, 2021 assault on the US Capitol.

In Texas, the law stops sites from pulling content based on a "viewpoint" and is also intended to thwart what conservatives see as censorship by tech platforms such as Facebook and YouTube against right-wing ideas.

Both sides -- the solicitor generals of Florida and Texas and lawyers representing tech groups -- sought to cloak their arguments in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects free speech.

Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, now known as X, achieved their vast success by "marketing themselves as neutral forums for free speech," said Henry Whitaker, the solicitor general of Florida, but now "they sing a very different tune."

"They contend that they possess a broad First Amendment right to censor anything they host on their sites," Whitaker said. "But the design of the First Amendment is to prevent the suppression of speech not to enable it."

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, noted that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from restricting free speech and expressed concern about government regulation of the internet.

"I wonder since we're talking about the First Amendment whether our first concern should be with the state regulating what we have called the modern public square," Roberts said.

"The First Amendment restricts what the government can do," he added. "What the government's doing here is saying 'You must do this, you must carry these people.'"

- 'Compels speech' -

Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, said the social media companies were seeking to deal with content they consider "problematic" such as misinformation about voting, public health, hate speech and bullying.

"Why is it not, you know, a classic First Amendment violation for the state to come in and say, 'We're not going to allow you to enforce those sorts of restrictions?'" Kagan asked.

The case was brought to the court by associations representing big tech companies, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, who argue that the First Amendment allows platforms to have the freedom to handle content as they see fit.

Florida's law "violates the First Amendment several times over," said Paul Clement, representing NetChoice and the CCIA.

"It interferes with editorial discretion, it compels speech, it discriminates on the basis of content, speaker and viewpoint and it does all this in the name of promoting free speech," Clement said.

Like Sotomayor, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, expressed concern about the scope of the Florida law, saying it could be potentially extended beyond the "classic social media platforms."

"It looks to me like it could cover Uber. It looks to me like it could cover Google's search engine, Amazon Web Service," she said.

The Biden administration also argued against the state laws with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar saying that while there are "legitimate concerns" about the power and influence of social media platforms the government has the tools to deal with it.

"There is a whole body of government regulation that would be permissible that would target conduct, things like antitrust laws that could be applied, or data privacy or consumer protection," Prelogar said.

The nine-member Supreme Court voted narrowly to suspend the controversial laws until it heard Monday's oral arguments, which lasted nearly four hours.

S.Palmer--TFWP