(Washington) The US Supreme Court decided on Friday to examine the constitutionality of laws prohibiting social networks from blocking users, adopted by Texas and Florida, two southern states led by Republicans.
These files are part of a list of around ten additions to the program of the new session of the Court, which opens Monday, published on its website.
The laws adopted in 2021 by Texas and Florida aim to curb the “censorship” of conservative opinions of which Republican elected officials regularly accuse the internet giants.
Texas law prohibits social networks with more than 50 million active monthly users from blocking, deleting or “demonetizing” content based on the ideas professed by the user.
In Florida, it prohibits any intervention by major social networks on the publications of political candidates or “journalistic companies”.
The laws of both states also require them to provide an “individualized explanation” to the user when they remove one of their publications.
The NetChoice association, representing internet companies, and the lobby of technology giants, the CCIA (Computer & Communications Industry Association) challenged the legislation of the two states in court, in particular on the grounds that content moderation was a responsibility of the First Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of expression.
But federal courts rendered contradictory decisions in the two states, considering in Florida that moderation activities did indeed constitute “expression” and adopting the opposite position in Texas.
The parties having requested the Supreme Court, it requested the opinion of the government, which ruled in August through a memorandum from its general advocate recommending that it take up the matter, but on two points only.
The Supreme Court followed this opinion and will therefore examine exclusively whether content moderation is protected by the First Amendment, and the validity of the request for individualized explanations.
This is the most important freedom of expression case on the agenda of the new session of the Court.
In this area, the highest court in the country will also have to decide this thorny question: can the phrase “Trump too small”, with obvious sexual connotations, be registered in the trademark register without the consent of the former American president?