US: Senator Josh Hawley, representing Missouri, is urging the Supreme Court not to accept the arguments put forth by Big Tech platforms asserting their First Amendment freedom to censor user content while seeking legal protection from the content posted on their platforms.US: Legal battle on first amendment libertiesNext month, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in cases challenging state laws that limit the ability of Big Tech companies to moderate content on their platforms. These cases raise questions about whether such state laws impede the First Amendment liberties of these tech giants.In a brief filed on Tuesday, the Missouri Republican highlighted the contradiction where platforms seek liability protections from Congress for the content on their sites while also demanding unrestricted authority to censor content under their First Amendment rights.Hawley argued that the court should not endorse these contradictory positions, stating that doing so would effectively shield the platforms from both civil liability and regulatory oversight by legislators.US: Origin of the legal battleThe cases brought before the Supreme Court stem from laws enacted in Florida and Texas. These laws would compel major Big Tech companies like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook to host third-party communications while preventing them from blocking or removing users posts based on political viewpoints.While a federal appeals court sided with the tech industry in the Florida case, ruling that as private entities, these companies engage in constitutionally protected expressive activity when moderating content, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favour of a similar law in Texas, creating a circuit split for the Supreme Court to address.US: Evolution of Section 230 Hawleys brief traces the evolution of the legal landscape in the 1990s when Congress and the courts grappled with reconciling the longstanding principle in American publication law. This principle held that individuals actively involved in disseminating others speech could be held liable for any unlawful harm caused by that speech.The result of this legal discourse was Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, designed to shield platforms from civil liability concerning user-generated content.US: Big techs contradictory stanceThe brief points out the reversal in Big Techs position, noting that they now claim their content hosting and curation decisions enjoy First Amendment protection, a stark contrast to their original stance when Section 230 was introduced.In an interview with Fox News, Hawley criticised social media giants, stating they always find excuses for why the law doesnt apply to them. He emphasised their relentless pursuit of preserving the ability to control speech and censor as they see fit.US: Potential consequences, Supreme Court hearingHawley warns that granting historical blanket immunity to this sector could have real-world consequences, allowing platforms to promote harmful content without facing legal repercussions.The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the cases, Moody vs NetChoice, LLC, and NetChoice LLC vs Paxton on February 26.
