The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today regarding a First Amendment case about whether social media companies have the right to limit what users may say on their platforms. The case centers on two bills in Florida and Texas that limit the ability of companies like TikTok, YouTube and X to curate their content. Jeff Cohen directs the USC IT Directory Law Clinic. He says the Florida and Texas laws are trying to prevent conservative voices from being censored.
Jeff Cohen: These two cases are both about two state laws that are meant to regulate social media companies, and that have, to different levels, have been pretty much explicitly passed with the goal of addressing what is perceived as sort of either de-platforming or censorship of conservative voices.
Two technology trade groups that have challenged the laws are NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association. They say that platforms have the same First Amendment rights as conventional news outlets.
However, Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker argued that the laws are necessary to prevent censorship.
Henry Whitaker: The telephone company and the delivery service have no first amendment right to use their services as a choke point to silence those they dislike.
The laws could have far-reaching consequences if upheld, according to USC Reach President Dylan Huey.
Dylan Huey: If we remove these moderations, like states, like Florida and Texas are proposing, we’re gonna see content that is more controversial, that you can still see right now on these platforms, but it’s not being pushed to your Explore page not being pushed on your for you page on a higher level because it gets people riled up and not in the best way.
USC Sophomore history major Heidy Cho says that some regulation is necessary to prevent the spread of fake news.
Heidy Cho: I think it’s important to at least have some guidelines, because I think social media is so pervasive that it can spread a lot of misinformation, a lot of hate.
Meanwhile, Freshman Luisa Luo, who is studying comparative literature worries that removing the ability to regulate social media platforms could lead to an increase in hate speech.
Luisa Luo: Free speech is definitely valuable. But at the same time, the toxicity that forms a breeding ground for actual hate speech can become target for marginalized populations, especially when it’s anonymous, then you’re like, basically covered and not held accountable.
Conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, seemed doubtful of the state laws during the hearings and could send the case back down to the state level.
A decision by the court is expected by June.
For Annenberg Media, I’m Drake Lee.