The U.S. Supreme Court has made several rulings that have significant implications for censorship and free speech online. In one case, the Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of state laws in Florida and Texas that restrict the power of social media companies to moderate their content. The Court has ordered lower courts to review these laws, which were challenged by tech industry trade groups. The laws have not gone into effect due to ongoing litigation. The Court's decision recognizes the importance of social media platforms to free speech online and the need to carefully consider the constitutional implications of regulating them [84399195].
In another case, a federal judge has blocked Mississippi from enforcing a new law that requires users of social media platforms to verify their ages and restricts access by minors to their sites without parental consent. The law was found to unduly restrict users' free speech rights in violation of the First Amendment. NetChoice, a tech industry trade group, sued and argued that the law stifled free speech. The judge agreed, stating that the law burdened adults' rights and was overly broad [ce5dc7a4].
The Supreme Court's decision in a separate case has raised concerns about Americans' ability to speak and listen freely online. The Court ruled that plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to seek an injunction against the government. Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that the plaintiffs failed to link their past social media restrictions to the defendants' communications with the platforms. Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern that the ruling would send the message that coercive government campaigns against certain speech can run unchecked. The decision gives government officials wide running room to pressure companies behind the scenes. Without an injunction, there is nothing preventing the government from encouraging platforms to restrict content during the 2024 election, as it did in 2020. Congress and advocacy groups are calling for action to restore free speech rights and defund agencies involved in censorship. The decision has been criticized as making the First Amendment unenforceable against government censorship [0f1b656d].
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Murthy v. Missouri confirms the perils of the court's doctrines on government censorship. The court denied that the plaintiffs had standing by inventing a new and heightened standard of traceability, making it difficult for anyone to sue. The court's doctrine encourages government to think it can censor Americans through private entities as long as it is not too coercive. The court's indifference to listeners' or readers' rights and its tolerance of sub-administrative power that the government uses to control private parties contribute to the erosion of free speech. The decision invites continuing federal censorship on social media platforms and compromises free society. The court's qualified immunity doctrine and obstacles to getting an injunction make it nearly impossible for censored individuals to get damages or stop the censorship effectively [ca1e6119].