Supreme Court wades into social media wars over free speech

SPC Carl Davis
..."The Supreme Court’s ruling on whether the officials were acting in their official capacities when posting to social media, meaning they can be sued for violating free speech rights under the Constitution's First Amendment, will have a broad impact in guiding how lower courts handle such cases.

Later in the court's term, which runs until June, the justices will hear oral arguments over the constitutionality of Republican-backed laws in Florida and Texas that seek to prevent social media companies from banning users for contentious rhetoric. Both laws were enacted at a time when Republicans were outraged at what they perceived as anti-conservative bias in moderation decisions.

In those cases it is the social media companies themselves, via trade groups, arguing that their free speech rights to choose what content to allow on their platforms would be violated.

Finally, the court will consider claims that the Biden administration has unlawfully put pressure on social media platforms to remove content with which it disagrees, a form of coercion dubbed "jawboning" — on issues such as criticism of the government response to the pandemic.

Again, the case raises free speech claims, on this occasion brought by states and individuals asserting the First Amendment right of users to be able to post their chosen content without government interference.

Earlier this year the court heard two other cases concerning Twitter and Google. Then, the court sidestepped a major ruling that could have limited the liability protections that platforms enjoy for content posted by users.

Daphne Keller, an expert on internet law at Stanford Law School, said the justices in those earlier cases, as shown by Kagan's quip made at oral argument, realized they had taken up an issue that was "frankly too complicated for their first foray into this area."

As such, the justices "recognized what huge unintended consequences a careless ruling could have," she added.

The Supreme Court itself, unlike some high courts in other countries, has no social media presence and none of the justices have accounts in their professional capacities. In 2020, Kagan admitted to being an anonymous lurker on Twitter, while former Justice Stephen Breyer said more than a decade ago that he was a Twitter and Facebook user.

The average age of the justices has, however, decreased substantially in the last six years, with four new justices all now in their 50s replacing much older members of the court."...

SPC Carl Davis
"WASHINGTON — Justice Elena Kagan drew laughter in February when she remarked in court that she and her eight colleagues on the Supreme Court are not "the nine greatest experts on the internet."

But that hasn't stopped the justices from taking up a new series of high-stakes cases on the role of social media in society, all of which raise different free speech questions and could have broad repercussions.

The cases on the docket reflect how social media has become a contentious battleground in society as a whole, with the rules of the road yet to be fully defined."...

I welcome these decisions.

I know I have my personal opinions on each of these cases, but I also know I am nowhere near as wise on Constitutional matters as the collective wisdom of the SCOTUS.