The Supreme Court should either consider whether provisions of Florida’s disputed social media law are preempted by Section 230 or vacate the decision of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals with the directive to consider whether the law is preempted, said an amicus brief from Reynaldo Gonzalez and Mehier Taamneh posted in docket 22-277 on a writ of certiorari for Moody v. NetChoice Monday. The amici are plaintiffs in cases against Google and Twitter over the murder of their relatives by ISIS, which they say was caused in part by content hosted on tech platforms. Florida’s social media law would limit the ability of social media companies “to remove, or refuse to recommend, posted material likely to incite terrorism or violence,” the brief said. A separate brief from public interest law firm Freedom X on behalf of Florida argues that removing speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment. SCOTUS should grant cert and “maintain the longstanding distinction between adding speech and subtracting it,” said Freedom X.
The Supreme Court should review a lawsuit against Florida’s social media content moderation law to determine whether platforms can be regulated as common carriers, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (CCJ) said Monday in a brief supporting Florida in docket 21-12355 (see 2210110030). Florida asked the high court to reverse an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a state law’s social moderation limits are likely unconstitutional. NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association are challenging Florida’s law as a First Amendment violation. CCJ, which files briefs on behalf of the conservative Claremont Institute, cited Justice Clarence Thomas’ suggestion that the high court should consider “its line of cases upholding regulation of ‘common carriers’ in reviewing regulation of social media platforms.” CCJ noted the concept of common carrier has evolved to include the use of roads, telephones and the telegraph. Social media platforms don’t transport goods, but they transmit communication like a phone or telegraph, said CCJ. If platforms are determined to be common carriers, content neutral, must-carry regulations like those in Florida wouldn’t violate the First Amendment so long as they “further an important interest unrelated to the suppression of speech,” CCJ said. The court should review how social media regulation fits into existing First Amendment precedent, said CCJ.
Outside counsel to Google consented to the filing of amicus briefs at the Supreme Court in Reynaldo Gonzalez v. Google, said the lawyer's letter Tuesday in docket 21-1333. The case is one of two related appeals of appellate court decisions on social media companies' legal protections in which SCOTUS granted certiorari Oct. 3 (see 2210110030). The petitioner is the estate of Nohemi Gonzalez, a U.S. citizen who was killed in ISIS attacks in 2015. The petitioner asked SCOTUS to revisit the 9th Circuit's holding that the Communications Decency Act's Section 230 protects YouTube's algorithm for recommending videos.