Tallahassee, Florida – The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments next month, with the state of Florida challenging a 2021 state law imposing restrictions on large social media platforms that violates First Amendment rights. .
In a 50-page brief filed last week, state attorneys argued that platforms like Facebook and “Constitutional permission to selectively silence the United States,” he said. ”
Part of the law would prohibit major platforms from banning political candidates from their sites and require companies to publish and consistently apply standards on issues such as banning users and blocking content. It's mandatory.
“By hosting billions of speakers and petabytes of content, the platform engages in business activities, or conduct, that may be regulated in the public interest,” the state's brief said. It is stated in “The First Amendment does not give those hosting third-party lectures the right to silence or arbitrarily treat the speakers they host. Telephone companies, Internet service providers, and delivery companies all , they can prevent their companies from suppressing or discriminating against the voices they convey. Platforms are no different.”
[EXCLUSIVE: Become a News 6 Insider (it’s FREE) | PINIT! Share your photos]
The state is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that blocked key parts of the law. The ruling was passed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature after Facebook and Twitter (now known as X) blocked an earlier law. President Donald Trump speaks from the podium after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Technology trade groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association challenged the constitutionality of the law. Tallahassee-based U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction blocking the measure, and most of Hinkle's ruling was upheld by an appeals court. Hinkle said the law is “riddled with inaccuracies and ambiguities.”
Lawyers for industry groups argued in a November brief before the Supreme Court that the law is aimed at punishing social media platforms deemed to have liberal views.
“While states are free to criticize websites' decisions about what content to display, distribute, remove, or restrict, the First Amendment provides that states cannot reverse those editorial decisions and “It is prohibited to substitute one's own judgment,” the group's brief says. “Just as the state of Florida does not dictate what opinion pieces the New York Times publishes or what interviews Fox News broadcasts, it does not dictate what content Facebook or YouTube distributes. When it comes to amplifying speech, decisions about what messages to include or exclude are made by private parties, not governments.”
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in this case and a similar challenge to a Texas law on February 26. In contrast to the Eleventh Circuit, the Fifth Circuit upheld restrictions on social media platforms in Texas law.
Florida law (SB 7072) applies only to certain large platforms. In a brief last week, the state's attorney likened the platform to a so-called “common carrier.” In addition to telephone companies, he also cited telegraph companies in the 1800s.
“SB 7072 only requires platforms to adhere to common business practices of remaining open to all visitors and content, which is why carrier regulations have been in place for centuries. “This is a method that has worked for many years,” the brief says. “This law merely constrains platforms from making representations to consumers about what censorship rules require; it does not prevent any messages.”
The state attorney also said, “The threshold question is whether Florida law covers conduct or expression. “The law regulates conduct when it prevents private entities in the United States from arbitrarily censoring speakers. Its principles are rooted in precedent, purpose, and history.”
But lawyers for industry groups disputed that argument in a November brief, saying there is no “common law tradition that imposes carrier-like regulations on private entities distributing curated collections.” Ta.
“In attempting to characterize SB 7072 as a carrier regulation, Florida has argued that the websites subject to the regulation are already operating as carriers and are therefore subject to some degree of greater regulation. “This cannot mean that,” the group's brief said. “In fact, the genesis of SB 7072 was that the Florida Legislature did not like that targeted companies were exercising discretion over what content to disseminate and how. , we are not trying to regulate the websites in question because they are already carriers. The aim is to transform the country into a common carrier for disseminating speech, but it does not allow states to force companies involved in the dissemination of speech into different, more indiscriminate editorial policies. It's just another way of expressing what we're trying to do.”
Get today's headlines in minutes your florida daily:
