SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION issued decisions too. It held in 2022 that the Nigerian government violated the petitioner’s right to freedom of expression, and access to information and the media, by suspending Twitter in June 2021. The Nigerian authorities claimed the action was necessary to protect its sovereignty on the grounds that the platform was being used by a separatist leader to sow discord. The petitioners, however, claimed that the suspension was in retaliation for a flagged tweet by the Nigerian President, for violating Twitter’s rules. The Court found that access to Twitter is a “derivative right” that is “complementary to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression”. Because the Nigerian government was unable to show any legal basis for the suspension of Twitter, the block, in the Court’s opinion, was in clear contravention of Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. More information on internet censorship by disabling access to services, or even the internet as a whole, can be found in the Special Collection of the Case Law on Freedom of Expression: Internet shutdowns in international law. 4. Must-carry obligations The above-mentioned measures all address the issue of an alleged failure of social media platforms to remove harmful content. They set up incentives, or legal obligations, to foster more active moderation or even censorship regarding content a government deems unlawful. In the United States, legislation with the opposite aim has been enacted in recent years. Conservative lawmakers are convinced that “Big Tech oligarchs” are “silencing” their voice on social media platforms. As a consequence of this assessment, the State of Florida, and the State of Texas, have passed “social media laws”. The law of the State of Florida –inter alia– prevented social-media platforms from removing a candidate for public office from the platforms (“deplatforming”); limiting or prioritizing posts by or about political candidates; and censoring any “journalistic enterprise”. It also required the platforms to apply “consistency” in their decisions to remove or limit posts or users; to allow users to “opt-out” of receiving a moderated feed; and to not change its conditions or standards more than once every 30 days. The law was challenged by two trade associations, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry, representing a variety of internet and social media companies. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld (2022) a preliminary injunction granted by a District Court against the regulation, as the majority of the contentious provisions were “substantially likely” to be unconstitutional. The Court stressed that social-media platforms engage in protected speech when moderating the content on their platform, and that, as private companies, they are entitled to curate a specific type of content and community for their platform. The Texas law had very similar provisions, prohibiting “censorship” based on: (1) the viewpoint of the user or another person; (2) the viewpoint represented in the user’s expression or another person’s expression; or (3) a user’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state. Just like in Florida, NetChoice challenged the law successfully before a District Court, which enjoined the enforcement of certain provisions of the bill. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas, however, granted a stay of the preliminary injunction (2022) on the grounds that content moderation did not constitute First-Amendment-protected speech and the bill was therefore constitutional. It referred to Section 230, stating that social media platforms “shall [not] be treated as the publisher or speaker” of other users, as an argument to further the idea that Congress didn’t think the hosting of user content is a form of “speech”, rather it is as mere conduit. The Court also emphasized that the common carrier doctrine “vests States with the power to impose nondiscrimination obligations on communication and transportation providers that hold themselves out to serve all members of the public without individualized bargaining”, and that platforms were such providers. The Circuit Court’s stay was later vacated by the Supreme Court in a close 5-4 vote, giving—once again—effect to the preliminary injunction issued by the District Court. 23