Florida’s social media law likely violates the first amendment, appellate court rules

Updated, with comments from Ron Desantis: The Federal Court of Appeals suspended Florida’s social media law designed to address alleged bias against Conservatives after a three-judge panel ruled it was “substantially likely” in violation of the First Amendment.

The law, signed and passed by state governor Ron Desantis, aims to practice content moderation on Facebook, Twitter and other sites by banning companies from showing political candidates and prioritizing candidate posts. It also prohibits platforms from removing any article published by a “news company” based on its content, the judges said.

“We also conclude that one of the particularly harsh revelations of the law, which requires secret platforms to provide a ‘reasonable justification’ for any content moderation decision, is substantially capable of violating the First Amendment,” said Judge Kevin. According to the opinion that Newsom writes. (Read here).

The ruling confirms the lower court ruling and the argument of social media companies: The First Amendment protects their decisions about what should be allowed on their sites.

In the decision, Newsom also tried to remind the public that social media platforms are “private companies and not governmental (or even semi-governmental) entities”.

“No one is under any obligation to contribute or consume the content that the platforms make available,” he wrote. Consequently, while the Constitution protects citizens from government efforts to restrict their access to social media, no one has the right to force a platform to allow them to contribute or use social media content.

Newsom was presented to the Federal Court of Appeals by President Donald Trump, who has been frequently critical of social media platforms. Trump launched Truth Social, a rival of Twitter, in part because the platform was skewed towards right-wing votes.

Newsom also wrote that platforms aren’t just “dumb pipes”.

“They are not just servers and hard drives that store information or host blogs that anyone can access, and they are not ISPs that transmit reflex data from point A to point B,” he wrote.

Meanwhile, internet platforms have filed an appeal with the Supreme Court to suspend Texas law. The Texas Federal Court of Appeals overturned a ruling on the law earlier this month. Texas law prohibits large platforms from censoring users based on their point of view.

Matt Schurers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which challenged Florida law with NetChoice, said in a statement, “This decision means platforms cannot force the government to publish disgusting, offensive and extremist posts under the law. “This is good news for Internet users, the first amendment and freedom of expression in a democracy.”

A spokesperson for DeSantis released a statement noting that the Court of Appeal had upheld certain provisions of the law. The governor said: “We are still disappointed that the court continues to allow censorship. The court’s central view that social media platforms are like newspapers and contests and not the usual vectors that convey messages to others is surprising. Florida people know differently. According to the spokesman, the governor “is currently evaluating appeal options. “We will continue to fight major technical censorship and protect Florida’s First Amendment rights.”

When he signed the law last year, the away team claimed it was “the guaranteed protection of the Silicon Valley elite.”

“If high-tech censors inconsistently apply the rules to discriminate in favor of traditional Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable,” he said.

Advocates of his case worked to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. This designation gives governments a greater interest in ensuring equal access to regulation for private entities.

But Newsom cited case law extending First Amendment protection to the editorial decision to entities other than newspapers, including the feeder, cable operator, and parade operator.

“When platforms choose to remove users or posts, prioritize content on viewer channels or in search results, or penalize them for violating their community standards, they will engage in first edit activities,” he wrote. You also rejected the argument that internet companies operate as normal operators, citing case law and federal statutes.