Supreme Court to decide if states can control fate of social media

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post

February 25, 2024 at 7:00 a.m. EST


To participate in the internet’s leading Star Trek forum, Reddit users must abide by a simple rule: “Be nice.” So when a user called one of the franchise’s characters a “soy boy” — a pejorative term insulting a person’s masculinity — in 2022, the discussion board’s volunteer moderators kicked him out.

But the user shot back, filing a lawsuit against Reddit under a landmark Texas law prohibiting social media companies from removing posts or accounts based on a viewpoint — an unprecedented regulation subverting how the internet has operated for decades.

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear oral arguments to determine the constitutionality of that Texas law along with a related Florida law, which prohibits platforms from suspending the accounts of political candidates or media publications.

The cases will determine whether state governments or tech companies have the power to set the rules for what posts can appear on popular social networks.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/02/25/supreme-court-social-media-free-speech/

---

(no paywall article)

[Lovie777]

1. Geez, good luck with that.................................

more importantly, shithole decisions for the USA could be front and center.

As to social media, especially for red states, how are they gonna kept the lies and conspiracies going?

[AZLD4Candidate]

2. social media - giving bullies the ability to bully from the safety of their keyboards since its inception

[Freethinker65]

3. I got kicked out of the Christianity forum here a few years ago.

I do not remember why. (Perhaps about infallibility?) I am a non-believer, raised Catholic, but I usually support believers' rights as long as they do not infringe on my own.

I recently saw a post from the forum (must not have been logged in or a glitch?) and wanted to comment (in support) but was unable to. Had to laugh and thought about appealing my old ban, but then just decided I really don't need to see or respond to what a subset group of DUers whose moderators were intolerant of one of my posts years ago have to say on the topic of Christianity. If they want an echo chamber to feel safe or whatever, that's ok. I don't own this site, nor am I a moderator of any forums. The rules allowed the forum to ban me, and that's ok with me.

I don't use Reddit very often, but there are so many groups and sub groups I am sure one could find one for practically anything. So you got bumped from one fan group? Seriously?

I also think having Individual States with different laws being able to control social media content for their residents is unrealistic.

[J_William_Ryan]

4. The right to freedom of association,

prohibiting government from dictating to private organizations, such as private social media, who will or will not be allowed to participate or dictate the content of speech.

Will the Court’s conservative majority again ignore settled, accepted precedent and allow the state to force private social media to accommodate rightwing hate speech, bigotry, and racism.

[24601]

11. As I read the briefs & summaries on sites like Oyez and SCOTUSblog, the questions raised appear to focus on whether

state laws exceeded their constitutional authorities constrained by the First Amendment. The more subtle issue may be whether very large providers and social media companies have become de facto public carriers, rather than purely private entities.

The battle lines are interesting since DU members' support for big business against government regulation isn't the norm. The precedent here may end up applying across other business sectors. If so, what's the more important priority - requiring a company to allow content that it has banned, or reining in corporate power?

[reACTIONary]

13. I can see the internet itself...

... being considered a common carrier, which seems to be the idea behind "net neutrality".

But not services on the internet. DU has a rule against supporting Republicans. That is political viewpoint discrimination. And that is our right.

[bluestarone]

5. SC needs to deal with the shit on its plate NOW. (the hell with adding shit to it)

Taking their sweet time.

[twodogsbarking]

6. America is turning into Catholic School. Telling you everything you can and cannot do.

It didn't just happen. It has been happening for decades, possibly longer.

[ificandream]

7. Social media outlets are privately held. They have the right to do what they want.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. (but) In a sane country, it would be a national standard, not statewise, bc Amendment 1 is national (but)

But, as other posters point out, corporations don't have to attend to Amendment 1 because they are not government.

On the OTHER HAND, if tech companies want to moderate, then they cease being Common Carriers and have a huge moderation obligation, for which there could / should be national standards.

[CousinIT]

9. So.. GOP/MAGA is all for states rights and "small gov't" UNTIL

PRIVATE Tech companies and states want to control what can and cannot be on social media platforms OR women want to be treated like humans instead of livestock.

Okaaay.

[Polybius]

10. This is crazy, what would it mean for DU?

We wouldn't be able to ban or delete crazy posts by Magas?

[BumRushDaShow]

12. They would have to navigate a landmine of their previous anti-government rulings

when it comes to "private entities/corporations" citing First Amendment reasons for their actions against those who aren't already covered under some other law.