Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
The Supreme Court on Monday weighed the fate of two landmark social media cases that could have massive implications for the future of the internet and speech online.
The court heard oral arguments over a pair of state laws in Texas and Florida that would prohibit tech companies from removing certain content, which were passed in response to Republican allegations that digital platforms are stifling conservative viewpoints.
During roughly four hours of arguments, most justices seemed broadly skeptical that state governments have the power to set rules "for how social media platforms curate content" as The Washington Post's Ann E. Marimow and Cat Zakrzewski wrote.
They also offered hints about how they may handle the blockbuster cases.
Here are our four takeaways from the sessions.
• Justices call state laws overly 'broad'
At various points, the justices criticized the broad scope of the Texas and Florida laws and the wide array of companies and services that they could cover.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor early on lamented that the Florida law was "so unspecific" and "so, so broad, it's covering almost everything." She added that the internet's "variety" is "infinite" and questioned whether the burden should be on the state to clarify its scope.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed similar concern, saying Florida's law was "very broad" to the point that in addition to covering "traditional" social media platforms, it could also cover ride-hailing apps like Uber, Google's search engine and Amazon's e-commerce site.
Sotomayor said the same of the Texas law, warning that "laws like this that are so broad" may "stifle speech just on their face." The criticisms bode well for tech industry groups.
• Justices float kicking cases back to lower courts
Several justices broached the possibility of kicking the cases back to lower courts, while either upholding or overturning temporary blocks against the laws in the meantime.
Justice Samuel Alito kicked things off by suggesting the high court could "vacate and remand" a lower-court ruling striking down key provisions in Florida's law, punting it back to them.
That move could allow questions about which specific company moderation practices are being challenged to be "fleshed out," Alito argued. He suggested this could be a way to tackle the fact that industry groups were filing a "facial challenge" - which argues that the law is unconstitutional on its face even before any enforcement, rather than in how it was applied in a specific instance.
Sotomayor said she initially had the same inclination as Alito - to vacate and remand - but hinted she may be inclined instead to uphold the injunction while remanding it.
Sotomayor said it was "clear" from the discussion that many potentially covered practices "are expressive" and that some likely covered companies shouldn't be considered "common carriers." The remarks signal that the court could send the decision back with instructions for lower courts to dig into those distinctions.
• Conservative court tackles tech ‘censorship' allegations
Republicans have long accused social media platforms of unfairly "censoring" conservative voices. Tech industry groups have often responded by noting that the First Amendment protects against the suppression of free speech by the government - not private companies.
That back-and-forth got a major airing Monday as some conservative justices pushed back on the notion that the term could apply to platforms' moderation practices.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said at one point that Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker "left out what I understand to be three key words in the First Amendment" and its protection against speech suppression, namely, "by the government." Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. later echoed the remarks, saying, "The First Amendment restricts what the government can do."
But other conservative at-times eschewed the distinction, with Alito asking if the term "content moderation" is "anything more than a euphemism for censorship?" Justice Clarence Thomas separately remarked: "I don't know of any protected speech interests in censoring other speech." The comments suggest justices may not be aligned in their views on the matter.
• Justices, states debate where to draw lines on the internet
The justices discussed ways to potentially distinguish between protected "speech" and business "conduct" by the tech companies that could be subject to the laws. However, it was not clear whether there's consensus on the matter - or if it's an issue they'll directly take up.
Justice Elena Kagan at one point asked whether a law could prohibit viewpoint discrimination in instances where you did not have to factor in questions about companies' rights to "editorial discretion," citing Venmo, Uber, Dropbox and Gmail as examples.
"When you're running Venmo, you're not engaged in speech activities," she said, suggesting the company's activity is distinct from the likes of Facebook and YouTube, which curate news feeds. Paul Clement, the counsel representing tech trade groups NetChoice and CCIA, pushed back. "All of those things are still in the expressive business," he said.
The justices also debated if and how the laws would apply to a business like e-commerce site Etsy. "Etsy is a supermarket that wants to sell only vintage clothes, and so it is going to, and does, limit users' content," Kagan said. "They're going to have to censor."
(COMMENT, BELOW)