On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the consolidated matters of NetChoice v. Paxton (Texas) and Moody v. NetChoice (Florida). Both cases impact how we can engage on the internet and what social media platforms can and cannot do to suppress the speech of users.
In a 9-0 ruling that largely chastises the lower courts for employing the wrong analysis and basically failing to do their jobs, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:
Today, we vacate both decisions for reasons separate from the First Amendment merits, because neither Court of Appeals properly considered the facial nature of NetChoice’s challenge. The courts mainly addressed what the parties had focused on. And the parties mainly argued these cases as if the laws applied only to the curated feeds offered by the largest and most paradigmatic social-media platforms—as if, say, each case presented an as-applied…
