The court blocked a Texas law that would have forced large social media companies to publish all viewpoints.
The Supreme Court handed social media companies a win on Tuesday by blocking, for now, a Texas law that would have banned large apps including Facebook and Twitter from weeding out messages based on the views they expressed. But the issue may return to the court, and at least three justices seem open to considering a question that could fundamentally change social media as we know it: Do sites like Facebook have a First Amendment right to allow some material and not others, or an obligation to distribute almost anything? The justices’ interest shows that we’re all still figuring out how to deal with a handful of social media companies having enormous influence over public conversation. Few people are happy about this reality, but it’s not clear what to do about it. Let me lay out how we got here:
What the First Amendment says:
The First Amendment restricts government censorship, but it doesn’t apply to decisions made by businesses. You may not agree with the internet companies’ choices, but First Amendment scholars have said that Facebook had a constitutional right to suspend the account of Donald Trump. Twitter can decree that people are not permitted to spam their followers with marketing pitches. 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 unfairly remove or demote some conservative viewpoints. I have not seen credible research that supports this view, but many people believe it.
