Previous 30 / 96 Next

24 MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC Opinion of the Court operators, and parade organizers this Court has previously considered, the major social-media platforms are in the business, when curating their feeds, of combining “multifarious voices” to create a distinctive expressive offering. Hurley, 515 U. S., at 569. The individual messages may originate with third parties, but the larger offering is the platform’s. It is the product of a wealth of choices about whether—and, if so, how—to convey posts having a certain content or viewpoint. Those choices rest on a set of beliefs about which messages are appropriate and which are not (or which are more appropriate and which less so). And in the aggregate they give the feed a particular expressive quality. Consider again an opinion page editor, as in Tornillo, who wants to publish a variety of views, but thinks some things off-limits (or, to change the facts, worth only a couple of column inches). “The choice of material,” the “decisions made [as to] content,” the “treatment of public issues”—“whether fair or unfair”—all these “constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.” Tornillo, 418 U. S., at 258. For a paper, and for a platform too. And the Texas law (like Florida’s earlier right-of-reply statute) targets those expressive choices—in particular, by forcing the major platforms to present and promote content on their feeds that they regard as objectionable. That those platforms happily convey the lion’s share of posts submitted to them makes no significant First Amendment difference. Contra, 49 F. 4th, at 459–461 (arguing otherwise). To begin with, Facebook and YouTube exclude (not to mention, label or demote) lots of content from their News Feed and homepage. The Community Standards and Community Guidelines set out in copious detail the varied kinds of speech the platforms want no truck with. And both platforms appear to put those manuals to work. In a single quarter of 2021, Facebook removed from its News Feed more than 25 million pieces of “hate speech content” and

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Moody v. NetChoice

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitude: 39.778231903243785

Longitude: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (linked Case Law): United States

Decision Date: Jul 1, 2024

Case Status: In progress

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Reversed and Remanded

Keywords

Content Moderation
Social Media

Judicial Body: Supreme Court (court of final appeal)

Court Name: U.S. Supreme Court

Case Number: 22–277 and 22–555

Case Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals failed to adequately analyze the facial First Amendment challenges to the constitutionality of laws enacted by Florida and Texas regulating content moderation on social media platforms. The states of Florida and Texas enacted two laws limiting content moderation on digital platforms and social networks, prohibiting “censorship” based on users’ views, and requiring companies to provide detailed explanations to users about content moderation decisions. Petitioner NetChoice—a coalition of companies that own digital platforms and social networks—filed a facial challenge to these laws, arguing that they violated the First Amendment. The states of Florida and Texas argued that the rules were designed to balance the marketplace of ideas on social networks. Two separate district courts granted preliminary injunctions halting the enforcement of both laws. The Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed the injunction against the law in Florida, holding that it likely violated the First Amendment. At the same time, the Fifth Circuit Court vacated the injunction against the law in Texas, arguing that content moderation is a form of censorship, not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed both circuit courts’ decisions and remanded the cases for further proceedings, emphasizing that the First Amendment protects the editorial discretion of social media platforms. The Court considered that a facial First Amendment challenge to a statute requires the petitioner to demonstrate that a substantial portion of the statute’s applications is unconstitutional. In this regard, the Court held that the broad scope of the contested laws, which deal with various activities beyond content moderation, required a more precise analysis to determine their constitutionality. In addition, the Court held that altering the private editorial decisions of social media platforms violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from imposing its own prerogatives regarding the proper balance of ideas on the private sector.

Case Significance: Expands Expression

The Supreme Court’s decision expands freedom of expression by reaffirming the First Amendment’s protection of editorial discretion in favor of social media platforms. This ruling, following an established case law pattern, hinders government interference in the editorial choices of private entities, thereby strengthening safeguards against compelled speech on online social media platforms. This decision upholds the principle by which the government cannot compel platforms to host content in ways that contradict their editorial policies—in the name of balancing the marketplace of ideas. Thus, it broadens the scope of protected speech in online spaces.

It is now up to the lower courts to assess the facial challenge and consider the more complex questions surrounding the scope of the laws and which aspects of the content moderation and disclosure provisions violate the First Amendment. There are still many pending issues, not least whether certain forms of algorithmic sorting may be deemed non-expressive and hence open to regulation. The rejection of this facial challenge has led some court watchers to posit that it could lead to a range of as-applied challenges to many of the aspects of the provisions, which will make their way through the courts over the coming years. Time will tell whether this will result in better laws, but the time has come for courts to apply First Amendment jurisprudence to evolving technologies.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Oct 18, 2024

Primary Documents

SCOTUS Opinion.pdf
English
Download View

Supporting files

pdf

Brief Of Amici Curiae Article 19: Global Campaign For Free Expression, International Justice Clinic At University Of California-Irvine School Of Law, And Open Net Association, Inc., In Support Of Respondents In No. 22-277 And Petitioners In No. 22-555.pdf373.56 kB

pdf

Brief of The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party.pdf346.82 kB

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Moody v. NetChoice

Primary Documents

Supporting files

Notifications