Like a heavyweight boxing match, the two sides danced around each other in the legal arena. The tech titans sought the Supreme Court’s intervention after both circuit rulings in late 2022. On the opposing corner, the states came out swinging, justifying the laws as a tool to make these digital platforms answerable.
Matt Schruers, the leader of the CCIA, echoed the sentiment of many. “The moment has come,” he expressed on Friday, “for the Supreme Court to decide if governments can compel sites to endorse perilous content.”
Texas & Florida Social Media Laws: Battle Lines Drawn
Florida’s Attorney General, Ashley Moody, remains undeterred, welcoming the Supreme Court’s intervention and gearing up for a legal showdown. Texas too has its guns blazing. Drawing parallels, the state likened its law to a precedent-setting ruling in Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh, which exonerated a platform from allegations tied to the Anti-Terrorism Act.
A crucial voice in this cacophony is U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar. She had previously weighed in on this digital discord, emphasizing that a curated collection of speech from others deserves First Amendment protection, a shield traditionally granted to publishers and TV channels.
Behind The Scenes: The Motive & The Mechanics
Florida’s law was a phoenix, born from the ashes of the notorious ban on former President Donald Trump following the U.S. Capitol siege in early 2021. Targeted at the digital bigwigs boasting massive revenues or user bases, Florida’s axe can chop away fines amounting to $100,000 daily for platform-wide politician bans.
