These are not simple issues, despite claims from proponents on both sides of the two cases before the Court. From Matthew Vadum at The Epoch Times via zerohedge.com:
Florida and Texas should be allowed to regulate how social media platforms moderate content, lawyers for the two states told the Supreme Court on Feb. 26.
During oral arguments, the justices seemed to be grasping for a new rule they could use to apply free speech principles to online discussions.
But there are “a bunch of land mines,” according to Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
“And if that’s a land mine, if what we say about this is that this is speech that’s entitled to First Amendment protection, I do think then that has Section 230 implications for another case, and so it’s always tricky to write an opinion when you know there might be land mines that would affect things later,” she said.
This is the first time that the nation’s highest court has reviewed state laws that deem social media companies “common carriers,” a status that might allow states to impose utility-style regulations on platforms and forbid them from discriminating against users based on their political viewpoints.
Justice Clarence Thomas previously advanced the common carrier theory. He has also criticized Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Section 230 reads, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
The provision generally protects internet service providers and companies from being held liable for what users say on their platforms. Supporters say the provision, sometimes called “the 26 words that created the internet,” has fostered a climate online in which free speech has flourished.
