he Supreme Court on Monday said social-media platforms’ content-moderation policies can be protected by the First Amendment. The justices sidestepped a ruling on the validity of laws in Texas and Florida that sought to restrict Facebook, YouTube and other internet giants from suppressing user speech.
“The parties have not briefed the critical issues here, and the record is underdeveloped,” Kagan wrote.
All of the justices agreed that the legal challenge to the two laws needs to be further litigated in lower courts, but they were divided in how they saw the arguments by NetChoice, a trade group that counts Google and Facebook parent Meta Platforms as members.
Kagan’s opinion—which drew support from five other justices—was skeptical of government attempts to force social-media platforms to take a more hands-off approach to content moderation. Her opinion adopted NetChoice’s central argument that social-media platforms have a First Amendment right to decide what to include and exclude in their curated feeds.
But she was wary of making any sweeping pronouncement about the constitutionality of laws targeting internet censorship.