Social Media Common Carrier
The laws violate the First Amendment because they require social media sites to abjure most content moderation, and platform speech they disapprove of.
Both states are trying to force tech companies to platform certain sorts of speech.
The laws require major social media platforms to host content they disapprove of for substantive reasons.
The Fifth Circuit was right to rule it was illegal for the federal government to coerce social media firms, but wrong to uphold a Texas law requiring those firms to post material they prefer to keep out.
The podcast is a debate between legal scholar Brad Smith and myself.
Plus: Who's bringing fentanyl across the border? Will Austin become a sanctuary city for abortion? And more...
Thoughts on the Supreme Court's Reinstatement of the Preliminary Injunction Against the Texas Social Media Law
The ruling is not a final decision on the merits. But it likely signals that at least five Supreme Court justices believe the law is unconstitutional.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch join Justice Alito's dissent, and Justice Kagan disagreed with the majority without opinion. This is not a decision on the merits of the law, but Justice Alito's dissent notes why the answer to the merits question is "quite unclear."
A new ruling says Twitter and Facebook are not “common carriers" and thus cannot be forced to carry politicians' messages.
Understanding the scope of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
Plus: Twitter defends user anonymity, Oklahoma legislature approves abortion ban, and more...
The law forces social media firms to host and promote speech they oppose, and would set a dangerous precedent if upheld by the courts.
The first will be with Jane Bambauer, Ash Bhagwat, Christopher Yoo, and me, this Tuesday at noon Pacific.
The rationales for doing so are weak, and would create a dangerous slippery slope, if accepted.