first design
site theme
Register or log in to register for discussions!
Florida petitioned the U. S. Supreme Court. The U. S. Government should reinstate its Social Media Regulation Act that prohibited sites like Facebook and Twitter from banning politicians.
Florida’s petition said the Supreme Court answered questions about whether the First Amendment prohibits states from “requiring social media corporations to submit third-party communications and regulate the time, place, and manner in which they do so,” and whether the First Amendment prohibits states “from requiring social media corporations to notify and provide an explanation to their users when they censor speech. of the user”.
Florida’s law is recently blocked through an order issued by the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The U. S. Department of Homeland Security, which issued its resolution in a lawsuit filed through large tech industry groups. Florida filed its petition in the Supreme Court several days after a Texas law on social rights media reinstated through the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The Florida movement views the contrasting decisions of the 5th and 11th Circuit Courts as evidence that the Supreme Court deserves to resolve the general issues applicable to both cases. Florida said the case over its own law is “an ideal vehicle” for determining “whether media platforms” speak “when hosting a third party’s speech. “
An earlier Fifth Circuit ruling in the Texas case was overturned by the Supreme Court in May, suggesting the states face an uphill battle. The governors of Florida and Texas have argued that state legislation is needed to prevent conservative censorship on social media.
Florida told the Supreme Court that “the Eleventh Circuit was wrong from the beginning when it concluded that Florida’s Social Media Act regulations triggered a comprehensive review of the First Amendment. “the resolutions were inherently expressive. “
“Then the Eleventh Circuit wrongly concluded that Florida may simply not consider social media platforms to be non-unusual carriers and, in doing so, requires platforms to brazenly conform to users,” Florida explained. The state highlighted Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion that supports the concept that social media corporations can be treated as habitual carriers.
Florida law states that a social media platform “cannot intentionally misrepresent a candidate for office” and imposes fines of up to $250,000 per day on social media corporations banning candidates for office. The law also states that social platforms “would not possibly apply or use post-prioritization or hidden ban algorithms for content and curtains posted through or about a candidate,” and possibly not “censor, remove, or prohibit a journalistic business based on the content of its publication or dissemination. “
Florida law provided a “theme park” exemption for Disney, but the state legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis eliminated the exemption in April.
Texas law states that a “social media platform cannot censor a user” based on the user’s “point of view” and defines “censorship” as “blocking, prohibiting, removing, removing platform, demonetizing, discouraging, restricting, denying equivalent access or visibility to the expression, or otherwise discriminating. “
Join ars Orbital Transmission mail for weekly updates in your inbox.