COURT AUDIO: US Supreme Court hears social media case, torn over Texas and Florida ‘regulating the modern public square’

Record ID: 1768822

  • Title: COURT AUDIO: US Supreme Court hears social media case, torn over Texas and Florida ‘regulating the modern public square’
  • Date: 26th February 2024
  • Summary: WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATES (FEBRUARY 26, 2024)(REUTERS) WIDE OF U.S. SUPREME COURT PEOPLE WALKING DOWN SUPREME COURT STEPS, INCLUDING FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ASHLEY MOODY (SOUNDBITE)(English) FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ASHLEY MOODY, SAYING: “What Florida is trying to do is make sure you don't have large companies who hold themselves out to be the public square. Come and share your opinions. Share information. If you're going to do that, you cannot then say, in secret, we are going to post prioritize which pushes you down, people may not even see you. We're going to take you off the platform. We're going to censor you. The law is meant to ensure that these platforms are not censoring folks.” WHITE FLASH MOODY WALKING AWAY FROM PRESS / ZOOM OUT TO SUPREME COURT
  • Embargoed: 11th March 2024 21:03
  • Keywords: CCIA Disney Facebook Florida NetChoice Parler Social Media Texas Truth Social Twitter U.S. Supreme Court Universal Studios X social media regulation
  • Location: VARIOUS
  • City: VARIOUS
  • Country: US
  • Topics: Lawmaking,North America,Government/Politics
  • Reuters ID: LVA004353026022024RP1
  • Aspect Ratio: 16:9
  • Story Text:U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday (February 26) expressed reservations about Republican-backed laws in Florida and Texas meant to restrict the power of social media companies to curb content that the platforms deem objectionable, but signaled they may not be ready to block them in their entirety.
    During nearly four hours of arguments in the cases, the justices expressed concern that the laws could undermine the editorial discretion of the platforms in violation of free speech protections. But they also indicated they might permit the laws to regulate certain non-expressive internet services such as the provision of email, direct messaging, or car-sharing.
    The laws were challenged by tech industry trade groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Facebook parent Meta, Alphabet's Google, which owns YouTube, as well as TikTok and Snapchat owner Snap. Neither law has taken effect.
    At issue was whether state laws regulating content-moderation practices by large social media platforms - born of Republican concerns about alleged bias against conservative voices - violate free speech rights for the companies under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
    (Production: Ashraf Fahim)
  • Copyright Holder: REUTERS
  • Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2024. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
  • Usage Terms/Restrictions: None
Register