Are social media and online discussion spaces platforms or publishers?
Do they curate online conversations, or are they disinterested parties merely hosting civic discussion?
Regulators and political watchdogs have pondered these questions since the early days of the internet.
They have become even more prominent with the rise of social platforms like Facebook, X, and YouTube.
On Monday, the Supreme Court mayprovidesome answers.
The move came following years of conservatives saying that online platform holders suppressed their views.
Florida’s SB 7072 and HB 20 in Texas are prominent examples.
The groups also contend that providing detailed explanations for every moderation decision is unreasonably demanding.
Interestingly, these two laws resulted in conflicting outcomes when challenged in state-level courts.
Florida successfully defended its legislation.
However, NetChoice got the Texas law blocked.
So, one federal appellate court said states could restrict content moderation policies, and another ruled the opposite.
As such, the states have petitioned the Supreme Court for a decisive answer.
Moody vs. NetChoice and NetChoice vs. Paxton rely on First Amendment arguments from all parties to the challenge.
The Supreme Court has agreed to settle the argument.
Many other online publishers agree.
These are landmark cases.
The ramifications will be huge, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.
Image credit:Fred Schilling
