Justices from across the ideological spectrum appeared likely to prevent Texas and Florida from immediately implementing laws restricting social media giants from removing certain political or controversial posts, even as they expressed concern about the power platforms wield over public debate.
During almost four hours of argument Monday, the Supreme Court justices considered whether state governments can set the rules for how social media platforms curate content in a major First Amendment case with implications for the future of free speech online.
The laws passed in Florida and Texas are intended to address allegations that social media companies censor conservative viewpoints by imposing strict limits on whether firms can block or take down content on their platforms.
The justices struggled with the specific path for resolving the challenges to the laws passed in Republican-led states. But after nearly four hours of argument, it seemed clear that the laws would remain blocked and the cases likely returned to the lower courts.
During almost four hours of argument Monday, the Supreme Court justices considered whether state governments can set the rules for how social media platforms curate content in a major First Amendment case with implications for the future of free speech online.
The laws passed in Florida and Texas are intended to address allegations that social media companies censor conservative viewpoints by imposing strict limits on whether firms can block or take down content on their platforms.
The justices struggled with the specific path for resolving the challenges to the laws passed in Republican-led states. But after nearly four hours of argument, it seemed clear that the laws would remain blocked and the cases likely returned to the lower courts.
