Can states prohibit social media companies from censoring the speech of their platforms’ users? That’s a question now before the Supreme Court.


The justices heard oral arguments Monday in a pair of major First Amendment cases. The cases stem from laws passed in Texas and Florida in 2021 after a number of social media companies’ deplatforming of then-President Donald Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.


Following social media companies’ banning of Trump and a number of other conservative voices, both Texas and Florida passed laws preventing social media platforms, such as YouTube and Facebook, from censoring users’ constitutionally protected speech.


But two trade associations challenged those laws on behalf of the social media companies.


The trade groups argue that social media companies’ decisions about what speech they censor is an editorial choice protected by the First Amendment.


Are social media platforms required to carry everyone’s views? Or like newspapers, do these Big Tech companies have a First Amendment right to choose what speech is and is not allowed on their platforms?


The justices are expected to issue their decision on the case in June.


Texas state Sen. Bryan Hughes, who sponsored the Texas law; Adam Candeub, a Michigan State University law professor; and Jack Fitzhenry, a legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation (of which the Daily Signal is the news outlet), join “The Daily Signal Podcast” to offer their analyses on the arguments before the high court on Monday and what the justices’ ruling could mean for Americans.


Enjoy the show!


Hosted on Acast. See for more information.

Subscribe to Daily Signal Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Published in: General