Should Social Media Companies Be Allowed to Censor Political Speech?
Summary from the AllSides News Team
The future of online speech is being scrutinized by the Supreme Court as it hears two landmark cases.
For Context: These lawsuits arose out of Florida and Texas laws enacted in 2021, which restrict tech companies' ability to censor political content they find objectionable. Advocates argue they shield the First Amendment rights of users, particularly conservatives, from what they consider to be left-leaning tech companies' bias. The tech industry argues these laws infringe upon their editorial discretion and thus their First Amendment rights. A key part of this debate is whether online platforms should be treated and regulated like newspapers, which have editorial discretion, or like the communications infrastructure provided by telephone companies.
From the Left: A writer in the Los Angeles Times (Lean Left bias) argued that if these laws are upheld, it would significantly worsen the internet and social media. The writer deemed the argument that social media platforms disproportionately censor conservative content to be “a widely promoted but unfounded perception” and concluded that these platforms “have a 1st Amendment right to decide what speech to convey.”
From the Right: The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board (Lean Right bias) argued that Republicans are “rightly frustrated by censorship that often tilts against conservatives,” but sided against the legal argument, writing, “the solution to business censorship of conservatives isn’t government censorship of business.” The board concluded, “it never turns out well for conservatives, or anyone else, when the supposed remedy is giving government more power to control speech.” This summary was developed with the help of AllSides' AI technology.
Featured Coverage of this Story
From the Left
How the Supreme Court should rule on Texas and Florida laws against social media moderationThe Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in two cases that could have a profound effect on the future of the internet and social media.
The cases — NetChoice vs. Paxton and Moody vs. NetChoice — involve laws in Texas and Florida that prohibit social media companies from removing content from their platforms, clearly violating the 1st Amendment rights of private companies. If these laws are upheld, they will make the internet and social media enormously worse.
The Texas law bars social media platforms with at least 50 million active...
From the Center
US Supreme Court weighs landmark online free speech caseUS Supreme Court justices appeared torn on Monday as they heard a landmark pair of cases which could fundamentally alter the future of online free speech.
At issue were Republican-backed laws passed in Florida and Texas limiting tech firms' ability to remove political content they deem objectionable.
Tech giants said the laws, passed after the 2021 Capitol riot, infringed on their right to editorial discretion.
At times justices seemed unsure of how to apply existing law to tech firms.
Industry groups have argued that the laws passed in Florida and...
From the Right
Big Tech Censorship Goes to the Supreme CourtCan government tell Big Tech companies how to edit content and police their platforms? That’s the question before the Supreme Court on Monday in two cases with major First Amendment implications (Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton).
NetChoice, a tech industry group, is challenging Texas and Florida laws that seek to prevent social-media platforms from silencing conservatives. Republicans are rightly frustrated by censorship that often tilts against conservatives, including us. But the solution to business censorship of conservatives isn’t government censorship of business.
The Florida law bans large social-media...
AllSides Picks
April 25th, 2024
May 1st, 2024
May 1st, 2024
April 29th, 2024