This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Florida Law Intended To Prohibit Social Media Platforms From Censoring
Certain Speech On Grounds That Social Media Platforms Exercise First
Amendment-Protected Editorial Judgment
by Joel Kurtzberg , John MacGregor and Jason Rozbruch
On May 23, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit decided NetChoice, LLC v. Att'y Gen., Fla., 2022 WL 1613291
(11th Cir. May 23, 2022), in which the court held that most of the
provisions in Florida S.B. 7072—a law intended to prohibit social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, from censoring certain
speech—were substantially likely to violate the platforms' First
Amendment free speech rights. Although the law was intended to protect
First Amendment rights—i.e., to protect certain speech from censorship
by social media platforms—the Eleventh Circuit determined that the law
itself violated the First Amendment by restricting the social media
platforms' right to so censor and moderate as the platforms saw fit.
That kind of content moderation, the court found, is
constitutionally-protected "editorial judgment." The court also held
that social media platforms are not "common carriers" with lessened
First Amendment rights. In so holding, the Eleventh Circuit has created
a circuit split, departing from the decision of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (just twelve days earlier, on May 11,
2022) to permit enforcement of the substantially similar Texas H.B.
20.It appears likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately weigh in and provide guidance regarding how the First Amendment should be applied to
these statutes.
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/social-media/1216526/florida-law-intended-to-prohibit-social-media-platforms-from-censoring-certain-speech-on-grounds-that-social-media-platforms-exercise-first-amendment-protected-editorial-judgment-?email_access=on
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<h1 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom:
0.5rem; font-weight: 300; line-height: 1.2; font-size: x-large;
color: rgb(21, 65, 148); font-family: "Open Sans",
sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">Florida Law Intended To
Prohibit Social Media Platforms From Censoring Certain Speech On
Grounds That Social Media Platforms Exercise First
Amendment-Protected Editorial Judgment</h1>
<p>by Joel Kurtzberg , John MacGregor and Jason Rozbruch</p>
<p>On May 23, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit decided NetChoice, LLC v. Att'y Gen., Fla., 2022
WL 1613291 (11th Cir. May 23, 2022), in which the court held that
most of the provisions in Florida S.B. 7072—a law intended to
prohibit social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook,
from censoring certain speech—were substantially likely to violate
the platforms' First Amendment free speech rights. Although the
law was intended to protect First Amendment rights—i.e., to
protect certain speech from censorship by social media
platforms—the Eleventh Circuit determined that the law itself
violated the First Amendment by restricting the social media
platforms' right to so censor and moderate as the platforms saw
fit. That kind of content moderation, the court found, is
constitutionally-protected "editorial judgment." The court also
held that social media platforms are not "common carriers" with
lessened First Amendment rights. In so holding, the Eleventh
Circuit has created a circuit split, departing from the decision
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (just
twelve days earlier, on May 11, 2022) to permit enforcement of the
substantially similar Texas H.B. 20.It appears likely that the
Supreme Court will ultimately weigh in and provide guidance
regarding how the First Amendment should be applied to these
statutes.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/social-media/1216526/florida-law-intended-to-prohibit-social-media-platforms-from-censoring-certain-speech-on-grounds-that-social-media-platforms-exercise-first-amendment-
protected-editorial-judgment-?email_access=on">
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/social-media/1216526/florida-law-intended-to-prohibit-social-media-platforms-from-censoring-certain-speech-on-grounds-that-social-media-platforms-exercise-first-amendment-
protected-editorial-judgment-?email_access=on</a><br>
</p>
<p></p>
</body>
</html>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)