Supreme Court takes on landmark social media cases: Here’s what’s at stake

Whether or not social media companies have the authority to regulate the content on their platforms is being debated by the Supreme Court justices

The future of social media companies’ abilities to moderate content on their platforms currently lies in the hands of the Supreme Court as justices hear oral arguments in two consolidated cases that could completely transform the way we use the internet.

The cases, NetChoice LLC v Paxton and Moody v NetChoice LLC, are two separate First Amendment cases from Texas and Florida respectively, that both ultimately deal with the same question: should social media platforms be given the power to choose what content can be removed?

Both states, under conservative leadership, have passed laws restricting what kind of content may be taken down or who can be banned from platforms, claiming that the companies have used subjective viewpoints to do so.

Those laws are now being challenged at the highest court in the land by two tech companies who argue that social media companies have a right to decide what content is allowed on their platform.

Should the justices allow the laws in Texas and Florida to take effect, it would force social media platforms in those states to allow for potential misinformation, hate speech, extremist content and more to run freely online.

This could motivate companies to change the way their platforms function in these states, which would alter the way online information circulates based on location.

In this photo illustration, a teenager uses her mobile phone to access social media on January 31, 2024 in New York City. (Getty Images)

In Texas, the law in question prohibits social media companies from removing content on platforms based on the viewpoint of the user and gives individuals the right to sue the platforms for doing so.

The law arose in 2021 after a tumultuous political climate throughout the US created a large division line among conservatives and liberals.

Similarly in Florida, a law was passed in 2021 prohibiting social media companies from permanently banning political candidates who are running for office and taking down content from a “journalistic enterprise”.

Florida’s law was passed following former president Donald Trump’s ban from Twitter and the suppression of The New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop scandal story.

Both laws are purposefully broad and vague, which makes it easier to apply them to various branches of social media and the internet.

But this also poses a challenge for the Supreme Court justices who could treat the lawsuits as facial challenges – that is, sweeping challenges alleging laws are completely unconstitutional.

If the court rejects both state’s laws, it will be a major win for social media platforms, allowing them to self-regulate as they do. That’s not to say the states wouldn’t come up with a more narrow interpretation of a law that prohibits companies from moderating content.

Justices will decide the case before or in June.