Tech

Florida escalates dispute over controversial social media law to Supreme Court


After an appeals court overruled a key piece of state law designed to prevent unauthorized access by social media companies, Freedom to make content moderation decisionsFlorida wants the Supreme Court to consider.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody Filed a petition on Wednesday After two federal courts of appeal handed down conflicting rulings, it asked the country’s Supreme Court to step into the matter.

In Florida, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state to prevent social media companies from banning politicians.in court overthrow Much of Florida law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, endured Texas parallel law known as House Bill 20ruled that it did not infringe the First Amendment rights of social media sites.

In Florida, Senate Bill 7072 prohibits platforms for banning or deprioritizing candidates for state office and news outlets above a certain size threshold. This law allows a user or state to take legal action against a social media company if it determines that it has moderated content or user accounts in a manner that violates the spirit of the law.

Unlike Texas, a court examining Florida law found that social media companies fall under the First Amendment when it comes to decisions about content moderation.

“Concluded that the content moderation activities of social media platforms (allowing, deleting, prioritizing, and deprioritizing users and posts) constitute ‘speech’ within the meaning of the First Amendment,” the court concluded. The official body wrote in the judgment of the court.

Netchoice, a trade association representing Meta, Google, Twitter and other technology companies, Predicted Trust The Supreme Court will likely resolve the state-level battle over content moderation in its favor, but it’s difficult to predict how things will ultimately turn out.

“We agree with the State of Florida that the U.S. Supreme Court should hear this case.” and has more than a century of precedent.”





Source link

Show More

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button