DeepSummary
The episode discusses a Supreme Court case challenging laws passed in Florida and Texas that essentially ban social media companies from moderating content on their platforms. Conservative lawmakers claim content moderation violates the First Amendment by discriminating against conservative voices. However, the tech companies argue that the First Amendment protects their right to moderate content on their private platforms.
During oral arguments, conservative justices like Samuel Alito seemed skeptical of content moderation, likening it to censorship and calling it "Orwellian." Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, defended the tech companies' right to moderate content as part of their free speech rights as private entities. The liberal justices also expressed concerns about granting tech companies total exemption from any regulation.
The outcome of the case could have significant implications for the future of the internet and online discourse, particularly leading up to the 2024 election. A ruling against content moderation could allow the spread of misinformation and harmful content on social media platforms.
Key Episodes Takeaways
- The Supreme Court case centers on laws in Florida and Texas that ban social media companies from moderating content based on viewpoint or political ideology.
- Tech companies argue content moderation is protected under the First Amendment as editorial discretion, while conservatives claim it discriminates against their views.
- The case has divided the Supreme Court justices along unusual ideological lines, with some conservative justices skeptical of content moderation.
- The outcome could reshape the internet by either allowing unchecked spread of harmful content or granting tech companies broad discretion over moderation.
- The timing of the case leading up to the 2024 election increases the stakes, as a ruling against moderation could enable widespread misinformation campaigns.
- The justices aim to strike a balance between protecting free speech and allowing some regulatory oversight over tech companies' moderation practices.
- The arguments highlighted the challenges of applying First Amendment principles to the unique context of social media platforms and user-generated content.
- The case exemplifies the broader tensions around tech companies' power and the ongoing debates over appropriate regulation of online speech.
Top Episodes Quotes
- “I knew that this was going to be one of those handful of cases every term where Brett Kavanaugh was going to come out swinging for the right side, and it was just like the embodiment of the worst person, you know, just made a great point.“ by Mark Joseph Stern
- “You know, these are conservative justices. They are the same justices who have granted corporations all of these rights. And it goes beyond even just freedom of speech and citizens United. There have been all these cases where the court gives corporations a right to free exercise of religion, right, allows corporations like hobby lobby to essentially discriminate against employees because of their religion. But here, all of a sudden, after all of those pro corporate decisions, these justices come in and think that corporations have no First Amendment right to editorial discretion.“ by Mark Joseph Stern
- “I think that there are a lot of ramifications for the election. I think for that reason, we should all really hope that the court does something sensible here. But I also, again, just don't think that fear of the worst possible outcome in this case should drive the court to issue a decision that's so sweeping and limitless that it prevents these websites from ever facing. Look, you know, even when they try to do good content moderation, they fail a lot.“ by Mark Joseph Stern
Entities
Company
Product
Person
Organization
Episode Information
What Next: TBD | Tech, power, and the future
Slate Podcasts
3/1/24
Is it censorship for social media platforms to moderate their content, or is censorship when the state tells social media platforms how to moderate their content?
Guest: Mark Joseph Stern, Slate writer on courts and the law.
Want more What Next TBD? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices