WASHINGTON—Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texaslaws that regulate social media companies. The laws limit the social media companies’ ability to moderate content and impose a range of transparency requirements. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed amicus briefs in both cases when they were on appeal to the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. Those courts issued rulings that are in sharp conflict with one another.

The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute. 

“These are immensely important cases that could completely reshape the digital public sphere. One of the things that makes the cases so consequential is that there are risks on both sides. A ruling upholding the state laws would give legislatures around the country sweeping new power to restrict and distort free speech online. On the other hand, a too-broad ruling striking down the laws could make it difficult or impossible for legislatures to enact reasonable regulation relating to privacy, transparency, and interoperability. It’s difficult to think of any recent First Amendment case in which the stakes were so high.”

The following can be attributed to Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute. 

“The First Amendment principles at stake in these cases could not be more important. The Court should make clear that social media companies have a First Amendment right to decide what they will and will not publish, free from government control. It should also clarify that the companies’ First Amendment rights don’t preclude reasonable transparency regulations, which can play an essential role in protecting free speech online.”

Read the Knight Institute’s Eleventh Circuit amicus brief in Moody v. NetChoice here.

Read the Knight Institute’s Fifth Circuit amicus brief in NetChoice v. Paxton here. 

In addition to agreeing to hear the NetChoice cases, the Supreme Court will hear argument in two other cases that have the potential to totally redefine free speech online,  In Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, the Court will consider when social media platforms can be held legally responsible for harms allegedly caused by their recommendation algorithms.The Knight First Amendment Institute submitted amicus briefs in both cases. 

Read the Knight Institute’s amicus brief in Gonzalez v. Google here. 

Read the Knight Institute’s amicus brief in Twitter v. Taamneh here. 

For more information, contact: Lorraine Kenny, [email protected].