The Supreme Court handed down social media companies on Tuesday, blocking, for now, a Texas law that would ban banned applications including Facebook and Twitter from sending out messages based on their views.
But the issue may return to the court, and at least three justices appear to be open to a question that could fundamentally change social media as we know it: Do sites like Facebook have a First Amendment right to allow some material and not others, or an obligation to distribute almost anything?
The justices’ interest shows that we’re all still figuring out how to deal with a handful of social media companies having the enormous influence over public conversation. Few people are happy about this reality, but it’s not clear what to do about it.
Let me lay out how we got here:
What the First Amendment says:
The First Amendment restricts government censorship, but it does not apply to decisions made by businesses.
You may not agree with the Internet companies’ choices, but First Amendment scholars have said that Facebook had a constitutional right to suspend the account of Donald Trump. Twitter can decree that people are not spamming their followers with marketing pitches. The government has not intervened in those choices.
Enter Texas. And Florida.
Conservative politicians have long complained that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media companies will unfairly remove or demote some conservative viewpoints. I have not seen credible research that supports this view, but many people believe it.
In response to this, a Texas law signed last year, HB 20, prohibited large social media companies from censoring people based on the “viewpoint of the user or another person.”
Associations of Internet companies and some constitutional rights groups said Texas law violated the First Amendment because it allowed the state to tell private businesses what kinds of speech they could or could not distribute.
The internet companies went a step further and said social media apps had the same broad First Amendment protections against government interference in “editorial decisions” that apply to news organizations.
Texas counters that Facebook, Twitter and the like don’t have such First Amendment protections because they are more like old telegraphs, telephone companies and home internet providers. More government interference is allowed for such “common carriers” because people cannot be blocked from using essential tools.
A majority of the justices said on Tuesday that Texas law could not go into effect while an appeal was winding its way through the court system. They did not decide on either side’s interpretation of how the First Amendment should apply to 21st-century social media.
What happens next:
A federal appeals court recently deemed unconstitutional a Florida law passed last year that similarly tried to restrict social media companies’ discretion over speech. The Supreme Court may eventually take up either Texas or Florida law and make a ruling on its constitutional merits.
On Tuesday and in the past comments, the three justices have expressed an openness to how the First Amendment should or should not apply to social media.
In one case last year, Justice Clarence Thomas brought up the idea of having similar responsibilities on social media as common carriers not to restrict speech. And on Tuesday, Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch signed a dissenting opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that said: “It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies. ” Alito also posted that he had “not formed a definitive view on the novel legal questions” brought up by the Texas social media law.
These cases force us to wrestle with a fundamental question about what kind of world we want to live in: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube so influential in our world that the government should restrain their decisions, or are they private companies that should have freedom? to set their own rules?
Read more on Texas law from our colleagues at DealBookGeneral Chat Chat Lounge
In this New York Times guest essay From December, Jameel Jaffer and Scott Wilkens at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University Post that social media platforms are neither like newspapers nor common carriers.
Before we go…
The online trail of the alleged mass murderer in Buffalo: My colleagues Steven Lee Myers and Stuart A. Thompson wrote that the persistent prevalence of racist and violent material online “reveals the limits of efforts by companies like Twitter and Google to moderate posts, images and videos that promote extremism and violence.”
Bring back this feature from the 1990s: The old AOL Instant Messenger will let people set up “away messages” that are discouraged people from having a conversation if you didn’t want to be bothered. Lauren Goode, a writer for Wired, said it was a simple but powerful feature to distract from free people and that she misses it.
A lighting assistant came to the restaurant for optimal video recording of appetizers. This Eater essay is a thoughtful reflection on how TikTok is changing the way we think about restaurants in both helpful and hurtful ways.
Hugs to this
The Oregon Zoo and some Girl Scouts helped release endangered pond turtles into the wild. The turtles and the Girl Scouts looked like they had a blast.
We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you like to explore. You can reach us at email@example.com.
If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, Please sign up hereGeneral Chat Chat Lounge You can also read past On Tech columnsGeneral Chat Chat Lounge