{"id":2293206,"date":"2024-07-12T05:47:01","date_gmt":"2024-07-12T09:47:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-casts-a-skeptical-eye-on-conservative-state-level-efforts-to-regulate-social-media-washington-examiner\/"},"modified":"2024-07-12T05:53:42","modified_gmt":"2024-07-12T09:53:42","slug":"supreme-court-casts-a-skeptical-eye-on-conservative-state-level-efforts-to-regulate-social-media-washington-examiner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-casts-a-skeptical-eye-on-conservative-state-level-efforts-to-regulate-social-media-washington-examiner\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court casts a skeptical eye on conservative state-level efforts to regulate social media &#8211; Washington Examiner"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">34<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fsupreme-court-casts-a-skeptical-eye-on-conservative-state-level-efforts-to-regulate-social-media-washington-examiner%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2293206&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The Washington Examiner reports on the Supreme\u200d Court&#8217;s recent decisions on state-level efforts to\u2064 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/government-cant-solve-our-cancel-culture-problem\/\" title=\"Government Can\u2019t Solve our Cancel Culture Problem\">regulate social media<\/a>. The Court ruled on \u200dtwo \u200bcases, sending \u200bthem back to federal circuit courts for further consideration. The laws in question aimed to\u2063 restrict <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-new-acting-attorney-general-jeff-rosen-recently-wrote-an-essay-on-foreign-influence-in-us-elections-this-tells-us-a-little-about-his-knowledge-of-whats-going-on-today\/\" title=\"The New Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen Recently Wrote an Essay on Foreign Influence in US Elections \u2013 This Tells Us A Little About His Knowledge of What\u2019s Going On Today\">social media platforms<\/a>&#8216; ability to moderate content, particularly \u2062targeting larger platforms with millions of users. The Court expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of these \u200claws, especially in terms of free speech implications. While\u200d the \u2064laws have been\u2063 temporarily \u2064barred from going into effect, the Court did not\u2062 definitively declare \u2064them\u200d unconstitutional. It remains to be seen \u2063how\u2064 state legislators will \u200crespond to the Court&#8217;s warnings about First\u200b Amendment protections \u200bin the\u2062 context of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-admin-may-temporarily-keep-contacting-social-media-companies-it-has-been-accused-of-pressuring-to-censor-content\/\" title=\"Biden Admin may continue contacting accused social media firms for content censorship.\">regulating social\u2064 media<\/a>.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><br \/>\n<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC \"-\/\/W3C\/\/DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional\/\/EN\" \"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/TR\/REC-html40\/loose.dtd\"><br \/>\n<?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><html><body><\/p>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-header-search-button-mob dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><a class=\"tdb-logo-a\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\" title=\"Washington Examiner\"><span class=\"tdb-logo-img-wrap\"><\/span><span class=\"tdb-logo-text-wrap\"><span class=\"tdb-logo-text-title\">Washington Examiner<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search\" aria-labelledby=\"td-header-search-button\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search-inner\">\n<form method=\"get\" class=\"tdb-search-form\" action=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\">\n<div class=\"tdb-search-form-inner\"><input class=\"tdb-head-search-form-input\" placeholder=\" \" type=\"text\" value name=\"s\" autocomplete=\"off\"><button class=\"wpb_button wpb_btn-inverse btn tdb-head-search-form-btn\" title=\"Search\" type=\"submit\"><span>Search<\/span><\/button><\/div>\n<\/form>\n<div class=\"tdb-aj-search\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/#\" role=\"button\" aria-label=\"Search\" class=\"tdb-head-search-btn dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><a class=\"tdb-logo-a\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\" title=\"Washington Examiner\"><span class=\"tdb-logo-img-wrap\"><\/span><span class=\"tdb-logo-text-wrap\"><span class=\"tdb-logo-text-title\">Washington Examiner<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div class=\"tdb-sacff-txt\">Magazine &#8211; Washington Briefing <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<h1 class=\"tdb-title-text\">Supreme Court casts a skeptical eye on conservative state-level efforts to regulate social media<\/h1>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-title-line\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div class=\"tdb-author-name-wrap\"><span class=\"tdb-author-by\">By<\/span> <a class=\"tdb-author-name\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/author\/jessica-melugin\/\">Jessica Melugin<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><time class=\"entry-date updated td-module-date\" datetime=\"2024-07-12T05:15:00-04:00\">July 12, 2024 5:15 am<\/time><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div id=\"Brid_1692562\" class=\"tpd-featured-video bridtv\"><\/div>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Supreme Court<\/a> moved into the online era this term by deciding two cases that will have implications for free speech on social media.<\/p>\n<p>In one, the court ruled unanimously to send the combined <em>NetChoice v. Paxton<\/em> and <em>Moody v. NetChoice<\/em> back down to the respective federal circuit courts that came to opposite conclusions on the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/texas\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Texas<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/florida\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Florida<\/a> state laws. The Supreme Court ordered a more thorough examination of the scope of laws and their First Amendment implications before weighing in on their constitutionality. But it did so with a strong indication that at least some of the applications of the laws are indeed unconstitutional.<\/p>\n<p>The Texas rule aimed to treat larger <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/social-media\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>social media<\/a> platforms, those with more than <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/babylon-bee-censorship-shows-why-fifth-circuit-should-uphold-texas-social-media-law\/\" title=\"Babylon Bee Censorship Shows Why Fifth Circuit Should Uphold Texas\u2019 Social Media Law\">50 million active monthly users<\/a>, like common carriers, presumably curtailing the platforms\u2019 ability to moderate third-party posts. Supporters of the measure claimed some users were being unfairly discriminated against or \u201ccensored\u201d on major platforms because of their conservative viewpoints. The law authorized Texas residents who believed they had their posts removed based on political ideology to sue the platform and empowered the state attorney general to take legal action on the user\u2019s behalf. The law was challenged in court, upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, but eventually barred from going into effect while the Supreme Court heard the challenge.<\/p>\n<p>The Florida law was similar in that it restricted social media outlets\u2019 ability to curate content as they pleased. But it differed in its thresholds (social media platforms that made at least $100 million a year or had at least 100 million users a month) and its aims. Florida sought to prevent larger online services from deplatforming a candidate for political office and introduced fines of $250,000 a day for statewide offices and $25,000 a day for all other candidates when those bans occurred. The law also allowed social media users to opt out of algorithms aimed at catering to a user\u2019s interests and instead see content based only on the chronological order of the post. The same two industry groups that challenged the Texas law secured injunctions of the law from lower courts.<\/p>\n<p>Both states\u2019 laws have notifications and explanation requirements for the termination of posts and accounts. The measures would have applied to Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram, X, and many others.<\/p>\n<p>When the cases reached the Supreme Court, they were essentially combined, owing to the focus on the same core free speech issues. Namely, do the laws impinge unconstitutionally on the First Amendment rights of social media platforms?<\/p>\n<p>While the court punted on declaring the laws outright unconstitutional, the majority opinion heavily reprimanded the 5th Circuit for upholding the Texas law, writing that \u201cthe editorial judgments influencing the content of those feeds are, contrary to the 5th Circuit\u2019s view, protected expressive activity.\u201d In doing so, the Supreme Court strongly suggested that the state laws, as applied to curated feeds, do not pass First Amendment muster. In her opinion for the majority, Justice <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/elena-kagan\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Elena Kagan<\/a> cited precedent by which the court has acted to protect that kind of expressive decision-making in the past in the context of a newspaper and a parade, adding that the First Amendment \u201cdoes not go on leave when social media are involved.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The court offered less guidance on the question of mandating disclosures and explanations from the platforms when users\u2019 posts are removed, demoted, or user accounts are removed.<\/p>\n<p>The injunction against the laws going into effect will remain in place while they are reconsidered at the lower courts. It remains to be seen if state legislators will pass new laws in attempts to accomplish their ends but not run afoul of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/first-amendment\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>First Amendment<\/a> protections the Supreme Court warned of.<\/p>\n<p>The other case, <em>Murthy v. Missouri<\/em>, was also a punt of First Amendment questions. Two states and five individual social media users sued federal agencies and executive branch employees, alleging that the government\u2019s pressure on social media platforms to demote their posts was unconstitutional \u201cjawboning.\u201d These claims involved content about COVID-19 vaccines, masking policies, lab leak theories, and the Hunter Biden laptop story.<\/p>\n<p>The court found that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient standing and avoided weighing in on the question of whether state action was involved when federal government agencies asked social media platforms to remove what they believed to be \u201cmisinformation.\u201d Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the plaintiffs did not show that the government action itself caused harm to users and that there was insufficient evidence that this harm would happen again in the future.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This leaves the question of when government requests to social media platforms become an unconstitutional end-run around First Amendment protections unanswered. Also unknown is if Congress will take action to write rules clarifying when this line is crossed.<\/p>\n<p>As the Supreme Court hints that social media companies have First Amendment rights of their own and demurs on the question of when those rights are violated by government pressure, it has already agreed to hear a case about Texas age verification requirements and health warnings for pornography sites in its next term. At the highest court, internet questions appear to be here to stay.<\/p>\n<p> <script data-cfasync=\"false\" src=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/cdn-cgi\/scripts\/5c5dd728\/cloudflare-static\/email-decode.min.js\"><\/script><script>!function(){var g=window;g.googletag=g.googletag||{},g.googletag.cmd=g.googletag.cmd||[],g.googletag.cmd.push(function(){g.googletag.pubads().setTargeting(\"has-featured-video\",\"true\")})}();<\/script><script>var _bp=_bp||[];_bp.push({\"div\":\"Brid_1692562\",\"obj\":{\"id\":\"27789\",\"width\":\"1280\",\"height\":\"720\",\"stickyDirection\":\"below\",\"video\":\"1692562\"}});<\/script><script defer src=\"https:\/\/services.brid.tv\/player\/build\/brid.min.js\"><\/script><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><a class=\"tdb-logo-a\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\" title=\"Washington Examiner\"><span class=\"tdb-logo-img-wrap\"><\/span><span class=\"tdb-logo-text-wrap\"><span class=\"tdb-logo-text-title\">Washington Examiner<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/div>\n<p><\/body><\/html><\/p>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court recently made decisions on two cases that will impact free speech on social media, sending them back to federal circuit courts for further examination. The court indicated that some state laws regulating social media may be unconstitutional, particularly those that restrict platforms&#8217; ability to moderate content. The laws in Texas and Florida aimed to prevent social media platforms from deplatforming users based on political ideology, but were challenged and ultimately blocked from going into effect. The Supreme Court criticized the 5th Circuit for upholding the Texas law, suggesting that such laws may violate the First Amendment rights of social media platforms. The court did not provide clear guidance on requirements for platforms to disclose reasons for removing posts or accounts. It remains to be seen if state legislators will pass new laws that comply with First Amendment protections. Another case involving government pressure on social media platforms to remove content was also left unresolved by the court. The Supreme Court&#8217;s upcoming term will include a case on Texas age verification requirements for pornography sites, indicating that internet-related issues will continue to be a focus for the court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2694,"featured_media":2293207,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/WB.Tech_.webp","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[34762,8703,34763,32275,32076],"class_list":["post-2293206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-conservative-state-efforts","tag-skepticism","tag-social-media-regulation","tag-supreme-court","tag-washington-examiner"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/WB.Tech_.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2293206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2694"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2293206"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2293206\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2293207"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2293206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2293206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2293206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}