• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
MENUMENU
MENUMENU
  • Home
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • FlaglerLive Board of Directors
    • Comment Policy
    • Mission Statement
    • Our Values
    • Privacy Policy
  • Live Calendar
  • Submit Obituary
  • Submit an Event
  • Support FlaglerLive
  • Advertise on FlaglerLive (386) 503-3808
  • Search Results

FlaglerLive

No Bull, no Fluff, No Smudges

MENUMENU
  • Flagler
    • Flagler County Commission
    • Beverly Beach
    • Economic Development Council
    • Flagler History
    • Mondex/Daytona North
    • The Hammock
    • Tourist Development Council
  • Palm Coast
    • Palm Coast City Council
    • Palm Coast Crime
  • Bunnell
    • Bunnell City Commission
    • Bunnell Crime
  • Flagler Beach
    • Flagler Beach City Commission
    • Flagler Beach Crime
  • Cops/Courts
    • Circuit & County Court
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • Federal Courts
    • Flagler 911
    • Fire House
    • Flagler County Sheriff
    • Flagler Jail Bookings
    • Traffic Accidents
  • Rights & Liberties
    • Fourth Amendment
    • First Amendment
    • Privacy
    • Second Amendment
    • Seventh Amendment
    • Sixth Amendment
    • Sunshine Law
    • Third Amendment
    • Religion & Beliefs
    • Human Rights
    • Immigration
    • Labor Rights
    • 14th Amendment
    • Civil Rights
  • Schools
    • Adult Education
    • Belle Terre Elementary
    • Buddy Taylor Middle
    • Bunnell Elementary
    • Charter Schools
    • Daytona State College
    • Flagler County School Board
    • Flagler Palm Coast High School
    • Higher Education
    • Imagine School
    • Indian Trails Middle
    • Matanzas High School
    • Old Kings Elementary
    • Rymfire Elementary
    • Stetson University
    • Wadsworth Elementary
    • University of Florida/Florida State
  • Economy
    • Jobs & Unemployment
    • Business & Economy
    • Development & Sprawl
    • Leisure & Tourism
    • Local Business
    • Local Media
    • Real Estate & Development
    • Taxes
  • Commentary
    • The Conversation
    • Pierre Tristam
    • Diane Roberts
    • Guest Columns
    • Byblos
    • Editor's Blog
  • Culture
    • African American Cultural Society
    • Arts in Palm Coast & Flagler
    • Books
    • City Repertory Theatre
    • Flagler Auditorium
    • Flagler Playhouse
    • Flagler Youth Orchestra
    • Jacksonville Symphony Orchestra
    • Palm Coast Arts Foundation
    • Special Events
  • Elections 2024
    • Amendments and Referendums
    • Presidential Election
    • Campaign Finance
    • City Elections
    • Congressional
    • Constitutionals
    • Courts
    • Governor
    • Polls
    • Voting Rights
  • Florida
    • Federal Politics
    • Florida History
    • Florida Legislature
    • Florida Legislature
    • Ron DeSantis
  • Health & Society
    • Flagler County Health Department
    • Ask the Doctor Column
    • Health Care
    • Health Care Business
    • Covid-19
    • Children and Families
    • Medicaid and Medicare
    • Mental Health
    • Poverty
    • Violence
  • All Else
    • Daily Briefing
    • Americana
    • Obituaries
    • News Briefs
    • Weather and Climate
    • Wildlife

Law Still Blurry as Supreme Court Punts on Florida’s Social Media Law

July 1, 2024 | FlaglerLive | Leave a Comment

first amendment social media
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to address the First Amendment principles at the heart of a challenge to Florida’s social media law forcing platforms to follow certain guidelines. (Carl Heyerdahl on Unsplash)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vacated appeals court decisions involving Florida and Texas laws designed to restrict the power of social media companies to curb content that those platforms consider objectionable, sending Florida’s case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the Texas case to the Fifth Circuit.

The ruling was unanimous, but the justices were divided 6-3 in their reasoning.   




The Florida case, Moody v. Netchoice, goes back to a 2021, when the Republican-led Florida Legislature passed a law (SB 7072) in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump being banished from social media platforms after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by some of his supporters.

The law prohibited social media platforms from deplatforming a candidate for political office and allowed the Florida Election Commission to fine a social media platform (defined as a company with annual gross revenues of more than $100 million or more than 100 million monthly active users) $250,000 per day for a candidate for statewide office and $25,000 per day for a candidate for other offices.

It allowed social media users to opt out of a platform’s algorithms and insist they feed them posts in order of the time that they were written, and required social media companies to provide detailed explanations to every user whose content they barred.




After the law was passed, two industry groups, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, sued to block its enforcement. In July 2021, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle in Tallahassee issued an injunction against enforcing the law, concluding that it violated the First Amendment and federal law governing the sites. 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Attorney General Ashley Moody appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, but were rebuked there as well in May 2022, when a three-judge panel unanimously upheld the federal court’s decision, writing that the state was not allowed to force the social media companies to comply with what the state deemed was permissible speech. 

florida phoenix“We hold that it is substantially likely that social-media companies — even the biggest ones — are private actors whose rights the First Amendment protects, that their so-called ‘content-moderation’ decisions constitute protected exercises of editorial judgment, and that the provisions of the new Florida law that restrict large platforms’ ability to engage in content moderation unconstitutionally burden that prerogative,” Judge Kevin Newsom wrote for the appellate panel.

The state appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard the case in February and ruled on Monday.

Remanded

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the court would remand because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit (in the Texas case) conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. The Fifth Circuit had upheld the Texas law.

Much of her opinion references specifically the Texas social media law but the ruling also applies to Florida’s law.

“Texas has never been shy, and always been consistent, about its interest: The objective is to correct the mix of viewpoints that major platforms present,” Kagan wrote.




“But a State may not interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance. States (and their citizens) are of course right to want an expressive realm in which the public has access to a wide range of views. But the way that the First Amendment achieves that goal is by preventing the government from ‘tilt[ing] public debate in a preferred direction,’ … not by licensing the government to stop private actors from speaking as they wish and preferring some views over others. That unadorned interest is not ‘unrelated to the suppression of free expression.’” (Emphasis in the original.)

Reaction

The industry groups celebrated the ruling — but curiously, so did Moody.

“We are encouraged that a majority of the Court has made clear that the government cannot tilt public debate in its favored direction,” said Matt Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association.

“There is nothing more Orwellian than government attempting to dictate what speech should be carried, whether it is a newspaper or a social media site. Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of the right to speak or not speak without government interference and made this a cornerstone of our democracy when they ratified the First Amendment. We look forward to continuing our advocacy for the First Amendment as these cases return to lower courts in Florida and Texas.”

“Today’s ruling from the Supreme Court is a victory for First Amendment rights online,” said Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, in a statement posted on X.




“As our cases head back to the lower courts of consideration, the Supreme Court agreed with all our First Amendment arguments. Free speech is a cornerstone of our republic. As we prepare to celebrate the 248th anniversary of American independence this week, we are gratified to see the Supreme Court acknowledge the Constitution’s unparalleled protections for free speech, including the world’s most important communications tool, the internet.”

Despite those comments, Florida AG Moody posted on X that “SCOTUS Unanimously Sides with Florida in Social Media Case.”

“We are pleased that SCOTUS agreed with Florida and rejected the lower court’s flawed reasoning — invalidating our social media law. While there are aspects of the decision we disagree with, we look forward to continuing to defend state law.”

–Mitch Perry, Florida Phoenix

Support FlaglerLive's End of Year Fundraiser
Thank you readers for getting us to--and past--our year-end fund-raising goal yet again. It’s a bracing way to mark our 15th year at FlaglerLive. Our donors are just a fraction of the 25,000 readers who seek us out for the best-reported, most timely, trustworthy, and independent local news site anywhere, without paywall. FlaglerLive is free. Fighting misinformation and keeping democracy in the sunshine 365/7/24 isn’t free. Take a brief moment, become a champion of fearless, enlightening journalism. Any amount helps. We’re a 501(c)(3) non-profit news organization. Donations are tax deductible.  
You may donate openly or anonymously.
We like Zeffy (no fees), but if you prefer to use PayPal, click here.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Conner Bosch law attorneys lawyers offices palm coast flagler county
  • grand living realty
  • politis matovina attorneys for justice personal injury law auto truck accidents

Primary Sidebar

  • grand living realty
  • politis matovina attorneys for justice personal injury law auto truck accidents

Recent Comments

  • celia pugliese on Pam Richardson and Kim Carney Are Killing Flagler County’s Beaches
  • Eighty six forty seven on Moral Collapse: Florida Thinks Letting Prisoners Live in 100-Degree Heat with No Air Flow Isn’t Cruel Enough
  • Dusty on Moral Collapse: Florida Thinks Letting Prisoners Live in 100-Degree Heat with No Air Flow Isn’t Cruel Enough
  • See no evil? on Moral Collapse: Florida Thinks Letting Prisoners Live in 100-Degree Heat with No Air Flow Isn’t Cruel Enough
  • Ray W, on The Daily Cartoon and Live Briefing: Saturday, June 7, 2025
  • Me on Pam Richardson and Kim Carney Are Killing Flagler County’s Beaches
  • Dusty on 8,000 Homes, 800 RV Sites: Biggest Development Since Palm Coast Seeks Bunnell Commission Approval
  • Joe D on Pam Richardson and Kim Carney Are Killing Flagler County’s Beaches
  • The dude on The Daily Cartoon and Live Briefing: Saturday, June 7, 2025
  • Palm Coast on 8,000 Homes, 800 RV Sites: Biggest Development Since Palm Coast Seeks Bunnell Commission Approval
  • Laurel on 8,000 Homes, 800 RV Sites: Biggest Development Since Palm Coast Seeks Bunnell Commission Approval
  • Laurel on The Daily Cartoon and Live Briefing: Saturday, June 7, 2025
  • Tired of it on Pam Richardson and Kim Carney Are Killing Flagler County’s Beaches
  • Laurel on The Daily Cartoon and Live Briefing: Saturday, June 7, 2025
  • Laurel on Pam Richardson and Kim Carney Are Killing Flagler County’s Beaches
  • Judy M on Pam Richardson and Kim Carney Are Killing Flagler County’s Beaches

Log in