The laws aim to block social media companies from banning users based on their political views even if users violate platform policies.
If allowed to stand, they could weaken companies' ability to enforce their own rules and transform free speech online.
"These cases are potentially of enormous, enormous scope," said Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute.
"This will be the first time that the Supreme Court really weighs in on the First Amendment rights of social media platforms, and therefore, the shape and contours of free speech online."
The two laws were passed in 2021 as part of a growing Republican backlash to how social media companies enforced their policies that led to bans and suspensions on conservative figures.
The outrage escalated when mainstream platforms, including Twitter, now X, and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, blocked the account of former President Trump after comments he made about the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
Under the new ownership of Elon Musk, Twitter gave Trump access back to his account in November 2022. Meta lifted its ban on Trump in January 2023.
"Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit," NetChoice litigation director Chris Marchese said in a statement after the high court took up the case.
"The internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship."
Read the full report and coverage of the arguments on Monday at TheHill.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment