In a recent development, Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri has made a plea to the Supreme Court, urging them not to grant Big Tech platforms the freedom to censor user content while simultaneously seeking legal protection from the content posted on their platforms. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next month in a series of cases that question whether state laws restricting Big Tech companies’ ability to moderate content on their platforms infringe upon their First Amendment rights.
Senator Hawley has filed a brief in these cases, arguing that the platforms should not be allowed to have it both ways. He believes that granting them the ability to censor content while enjoying liability protections would not only be contradictory but also shield them from civil liability and regulatory oversight. He strongly opposes constitutionalizing such contradictory positions.
The cases before the Supreme Court stem from separate laws passed in Florida and Texas that would require major Big Tech companies, such as X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, to host third-party communications without blocking or removing posts based on political viewpoints. The tech industry received a favorable ruling from a federal appeals court in the Florida case, which stated that as private entities, these companies engage in constitutionally protected expressive activity when they moderate and curate content on their platforms. However, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of a similar law in Texas, creating a circuit split and prompting the Supreme Court’s intervention.
Senator Hawley’s brief highlights the origins of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was enacted in the 1990s to protect platforms from civil liability for hosting user-generated content. He argues that the platforms now claim that their content hosting and curation decisions are expressive enough to enjoy First Amendment protection, despite decades of arguing against this position. This inconsistency, according to Hawley, undermines the logic of Section 230.
In an interview, Senator Hawley criticized social media giants for always finding excuses to exempt themselves from the law. He believes that their primary concern is maintaining control over speech and the ability to censor as they see fit. The platforms, on the other hand, argue that state laws in Florida and Texas infringe upon their First Amendment rights by imposing content-based and viewpoint-discriminatory requirements.
Hawley warns that granting blanket immunity to the tech industry will have serious real-world consequences. He presents a hypothetical scenario where web platforms could promote content that harms young people, such as promoting eating disorders. If these platforms enjoy First Amendment immunity, there would be no private action against them, and government intervention would be futile.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the cases, Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, and NetChoice LLC v. Paxton, on February 26. Senator Hawley’s brief adds an important perspective to the ongoing debate surrounding Big Tech’s control over user content and their constitutional rights. As the court prepares to tackle this landmark First Amendment case, the outcome will have significant implications for the future of online speech regulation.
In conclusion, Senator Josh Hawley’s plea to the Supreme Court highlights the contradictory positions of Big Tech platforms in seeking censorship immunity while enjoying liability protections. This article sheds light on the ongoing legal battle surrounding the First Amendment rights of these companies and the potential consequences of granting them unchecked power over online content moderation. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will undoubtedly shape the future of free speech in the digital age.
