The Supreme Court handed a victory to social media companies on Tuesday by blocking Texas law prohibiting the removal of messages based on the views expressed by large apps such as Facebook and Twitter.
But the problem could go back to court, and at least three judges seem open to considering questions that could radically change social media, as we know it. .. Obligation to distribute almost anything?
The judge’s interest shows that we are all still thinking about how to deal with the few social media companies that have a great influence on public conversation. Few people are happy with this reality, but it’s not clear what to do.
Let me explain how I got here.
Contents of the First Amendment of the Constitution:
The First Amendment restricts government censorship, but does not apply to corporate decisions.
You may not agree with the choice of internet company, but scholars in First Amendment said Facebook has the constitutional right to suspend Donald Trump’s account. Twitter can order that marketing marketing is not allowed to send spam to followers. The government has not intervened in those choices.
Enter Texas. And Florida.
Conservative politicians have long complained that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social media companies have unfairly removed or demoted some conservative perspectives. I haven’t seen any credible research to support this view, but many believe it.
In response, Texas Law HB 20, signed last year, prohibited large social media companies from censoring people based on a “user or other person’s perspective.”
The Association of Internet Companies and some constitutional rights groups violate the First Amendment because Texas law allowed the state to tell private companies what kind of speech they could or could not distribute. He said he was doing it.
Internet companies went one step further, saying that social media apps have the same broad constitutional amendment protection against government interference with the “editorial judgment” that applies to the press.
Texas Counter Facebook, Twitter, etc. are similar to old telcos, telephone companies, and home internet providers, so there is no such protection from the First Amendment. More government intervention is allowed for these “telecom operators” because they cannot prevent people from using important communication tools.
A majority of judges said on Tuesday that Texas law could not be enforced while the appeal passed the court system. They did not determine either side’s interpretation of how the First Amendment should be applied to social media in the 21st century.
What happens next:
Recently, the Federal Court of Appeals Considered unconstitutional Similarly, Florida law was passed last year that sought to limit the discretion of social media companies for speech. The Supreme Court may ultimately take up either Texas law or Florida law and decide on its constitutional benefits.
In Tuesday and past comments, the three judges stated they were open to considering how the First Amendment should or should not be applied to social media. ..
In last year’s case, Judge Clarence Thomas I brought up an idea Of social media with the same responsibilities as a typical career that does not limit speech.And on Tuesday, Judge Thomas and Judge Neil Gorsuch signed a dissenting opinion. opinion Judge Samuel Alito said: “It’s not entirely clear how existing case law that preceded the age of the Internet should be applied to large social media companies.” Arito also said, “A new legal issue raised by Texas social media law.” Did not form a definitive view on. “
These incidents have forced us to address the fundamental question of what kind of world we would like to live in. How to set your own rules?
Read more about Texas law from a colleague on DealBook..
In this New York Times guest essay From December, James Jaffer and Scott Wilkens of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University He writes that social media platforms are not like newspapers or carriers.
Before going …
-
Online trail of mass slaughterers accused in Buffalo: My colleagues Stephen Lee Myers and Stuart A. Thompson said that the persistent dissemination of racist and violent material online “moderates posts, images and videos that encourage radicalism and violence. It reveals the limits of efforts by companies like Twitter and Google for. “
-
We will revive this feature from the 1990s. With the old AOL Instant Messenger, you can set up “away messages” that discourage you from starting a conversation if you don’t want to be bothered. Wired writer Lauren Goode A simple but powerful feature to free people from distractions And she misses it.
-
A lighting assistant came to the restaurant for the best video recording of the appetizer. This eater essay is a thoughtful consideration of how TikTok is. Change the way you think about restaurants In both beneficial and harmful ways.
Embrace this
Oregon Zoo and Girl Scouts Helped release the endangered pond turtle into the wild. Turtles and Girl Scouts seemed to explode.
We want to hear from you. What do you think of this newsletter and what else do you want us to explore?You can reach us ontech@nytimes.com.
If you haven’t already put this newsletter in your inbox, Please sign up here..You can read again Past on-tech columns..
