This case concerns the constitutionality of a Texas (and Florida) law that prohibits certain platforms from "censoring" speech based on the viewpoint of the Speaker.
In this case, the District Court found the law facially unconstitutional. It argued that social media platforms have a level of editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment, and HB 20 interferes with that discretion. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding the statute to be constitutional, rejecting the idea that large corporations have a "freewheeling" First Amendment right to censor what people say. It reasoned that HB 20 does not regulate the platforms' speech but protects other people’s speech and regulates the platforms' conduct.
U.S. Supreme Court oral argument, NetChoice, LLC, et al. v. Ken Paxton, In His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas
Argument took place on February 26, 2024
0:00 Chief Justice calling the case
0:11 Paul Clement for NetChoice (Pet.) arguing
30:30 General Prelogar for United States (Amici) arguing, in support of NetChoice
40:30 Aaron Nielson for State of Texas (Resp.) arguing
1:16:45 Paul Clement rebuttal
Check out scotusblog.com/ to learn more about the case and to stay up to date.
Photo: Bill Chizek/Adobe Stock