Texas’ new social media law has the potential to raise racial tension in America because of what liberals refer to as a “free pass” from social media companies to allow hate speech and other obscene content from users on their platforms. This issue has dangerous implications because it may lead to speech that inspires hate crimes.
Texas law prohibits social media platforms from removing any content based on the user’s viewpoint. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Texas “prohibits some censorship of all speakers” based on their expressed views.
For context, ScotusBlog points out laws in Texas and Florida were passed following the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol with the belief social media companies were censoring users, especially those with conservative views.
The article states these “laws contain provisions that limit the choices that social media companies can make about which user-generated content to present to the public, and they also contain provisions that require social media platforms to provide individualized explanations to users about the platforms’ editorial choices.”
For example, former President Donald Trump’s account on X (formerly Twitter) was taken down amid his comments about the Capitol attacks.
Social media platforms represented by two trade groups went to federal court to challenge the laws.
ScotusBlog also states how “the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the Texas law. The Texas law is not currently in effect, however, because in 2022 the Supreme Court barred the state from implementing it while the challenge continued.”
Lower courts feel conflicted about the laws that heightened the need for Supreme Court review.
What is the Supreme Court reviewing?
“This will be the first time that the Supreme Court really weighs in on the First Amendment rights of social media platforms, and therefore, the shape and contours of free speech online.”
These are the questions the Supreme Court asked themselves:
- Should social media companies be treated like telephone carriers or newspapers?
- How far does the First Amendment reach when it comes to social media?
Justices expressed concern that the laws could undermine the editorial discretion of social media platforms in violation of free speech protections.
Tech industry groups argue that the internet is a platform where you should be able to express yourself freely so governments shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what kind of speech companies use.
Here’s where the conflict of opinions arise
“Several justices said that the states violated the First Amendment by telling a handful of major platforms that they could not moderate their users’ posts,” according to Esquire.
The First Amendment is freedom of speech. This idea draws distinctions between government censorship prohibited by the First Amendment and actions by private companies to determine what speech to include on their platforms.
Justice Elena Kagan said the major platforms had good reasons to reject posts inciting anarchy because it would endanger public health and spread hate speech.
“Why isn’t that a First Amendment judgment?” she asked, according to The New York Times.
Judge Andrew Oldham of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit wrote, “We reject the platforms’ attempt to extract a freewheeling censorship right from the Constitution’s free speech guarantee,” for the majority. “The platforms are not newspapers. Their censorship is not speech.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t give corporations an “unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”
The coalition of tech advocacy groups and companies argue if the Supreme Court were to allow the laws to go forward it would have a disproportionate impact on small and midsized tech platforms.
“Allowing for content moderation differences is part of what helps set smaller companies apart and stay competitive in the marketplace,” said Laura Biseto, deputy general counsel at NextDoor.
Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute, said “This kind of case could have huge implications for free speech online for decades, and the justices will…be aware of that.”
“They will be trying to find a way to reach a decision that can stand the test of time and that doesn’t unduly inhibit technology going forward.”
Paul Clement, an attorney representing NetChoice, told the justices that platforms seek to promote open dialogue, adding that, contrary to the states’ claims, “conservative voices have really flourished on those websites.”
Clement said that upholding the laws would be dangerous for young people whose social media use is being increasingly scrutinized as harmful because protective measures might be undermined.
Economically, social media companies can reject advertisements from brands whose content doesn’t align with their values.
For example, if a social media platform is even occasionally letting their users post racist content, why would brands such as Draft Kings, Better Help or Target want to advertise there? It would alienate customers who are offended by racist or hateful content.
Often in consultation with civil society groups, social media companies have built well-defined standards about what kind of posts would qualify as breaking the companies’ rules against inciting violence. Examples include amplifying terrorism and spreading hate speech, like in the Cambridge Analytica scandal where Facebook user information was harvested by a data-mining company which Russian operatives used to seek influence in the 2016 presidential election.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling will be issued by the end of July. I support the law because it will lead to more discourse and different viewpoints on more topics. This idea will lead to more people being exposed to different viewpoints so it can expand their biases and perspectives. Republicans also endorse this legislation because it gives them the freedom to express their opinions on any topic without the fear of censorship.
However, can we trust people will listen to each other? No, we cannot. From this perspective, I do not support the law because people won’t listen to each other based on how hateful or inaccurate the information they are reading or watching is.
This idea will amplify the ugliest aspects of the digital age, including hate speech and misinformation and I don’t think we are smart enough to decipher what’s valid or not, in terms of information.
For these reasons, I am calling for more education on media literacy and the enhancement of critical thinking skills. Lawmakers have been criticized for their limited understanding of personal technology. Congress must provide training for their members to become more technologically proficient in order to understand the issues social media presents to society.
