Florida Appeals Big Tech Censorship Law to the Supreme Court

A lawsuit over a Florida law limiting Big Tech’s power was appealed to the Supreme Court yesterday.

The law was originally passed and signed by Gov. DeSantis in 2021 and presented as an anti-censorship law. It requires social media companies to host some third-party content they would rather not host and requires disclosure about how and when platforms censor speech and must notify users. DeSantis spoke on the purpose of the bill when he signed it.

“If big tech censors enforce rules inconsistently to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable.”

The legal question now is whether states have the authority to prevent tech companies from hosting content they deem inappropriate. A collection of major tech companies, including Amazon, Tik Tok, and Google, known as NetChoice sued to block the law. Their attorneys say that the censorship law is violative of the First Amendment.

Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel for NetChoice, said this in an interview with NewsJax.

“This law represents government compelled speech, which is a gross violation of the First Amendment and likewise it will force websites to host lawful but awful content that we don’t want. Content like abuse of animals, content like child grooming, content like terrorist recruitment.”

The law was already struck down in two other courts; this is the final appeal. Szabo, who identifies as a conservative Republican, said that his position is the true conservative, constitutionally sound argument.

“At the end of the day, conservative principles are centered on letting a private business decide what’s best for its users and its customers. And that’s what the First Amendment says too, ultimately….Is the state of Florida trying to force websites to host content that they don’t want, their users don’t want? And they’re doing what’s best for their business.”

Part of the legal debate seems to stem back to Section 230, a federal law that allows platforms to delete certain content without sacrificing liability immunity for all content posted on their site. Until then, platforms could not screen any content without becoming a publisher and sacrificing their immunity.

Subscribe to the Florida Jolt Newsletter!

Section 2 of Section says that no internet provider or user (including social media platforms) shall be held liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers being obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;”

The clause “otherwise objectionable” has allowed platforms to take down all manners of political speech while maintaining their liability immunity. The “good faith” clause should theoretically guard against this, but it’s been historically ineffective.

Many on Twitter itself Support DeSantis’ law.

Regardless, the ultimate fate of the law and the final verdict of the now-originalist Supreme Court remains unclear.

You may also like: New DeSantis Campaign Ad Highlights Navy Background

Be sure to read: NOT IN FLORIDA: CFO Patronis Threatens to Void Credit Card Companies That Punish Gun Purchases

Share via
Share via
Thank you for sharing! Sign up for emails!
Making our country Great Again and keeping America First takes teamwork.

Subscribe to our newsletter, join our team of Patriots, and read real conservative news you can trust.

Invalid email address
Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime.
Send this to a friend