Connect with us

Business

Opinion: How the Supreme Court should rule on Texas and Florida laws against social media moderation

Published

on

Opinion: How the Supreme Court should rule on Texas and Florida laws against social media moderation

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in two cases that could have a profound effect on the future of the internet and social media.

The cases — NetChoice vs. Paxton and Moody vs. NetChoice — involve laws in Texas and Florida that prohibit social media companies from removing content from their platforms, clearly violating the 1st Amendment rights of private companies. If these laws are upheld, they will make the internet and social media enormously worse.

The Texas law bars social media platforms with at least 50 million active users — such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube — from removing content based on the views expressed. The Florida law prohibits them from removing speech by political candidates and “journalistic enterprises”; it also requires them to notify users of any content moderation decisions and provide an explanation.

Texas and Florida adopted these laws based on a widely promoted but unfounded perception that social media platforms are more likely to remove conservative expression. Researchers have found no evidence to support this belief.

But even if there were a basis for concern, social media platforms — like all other media — have a 1st Amendment right to decide what speech to convey.

Advertisement

Half a century ago, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. vs. Tornillo, the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated a Florida law that required newspapers to provide space to political candidates who had been attacked in print. The court emphasized that freedom of the press allows a newspaper to decide what to include and exclude.

The government can’t regulate speech on privately owned social media platforms any more than it can edit a newspaper. Several justices, including conservatives Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh, made similar points during the oral arguments.

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals declared the Florida law unconstitutional on this basis. It also found that requiring a justification to be provided for every decision to remove material would make content moderation impossible. In considering the Texas law, however, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that social media companies are, like phone companies, “common carriers” and can therefore be prevented from removing content.

The problem with this argument is that social media platforms are not and never have been common carriers that simply transmit everything that is posted. Nor would anyone want them to be.

Social media platforms constantly remove awful content. Facebook removes 3 million pieces of hate speech a month, an average of more than 4,000 per hour. And yet no reasonable person would accuse Facebook of being too effective at removing such speech.

Advertisement

Fortunately, social media companies remove a wide array of awful expression, including violent and sexually explicit content, much of it protected by the 1st Amendment.

Underlying the two cases heard Monday by the Supreme Court is the broader question of whether state governments should regulate the content of social media and other online platforms. Many states, including California, have in recent years adopted a plethora of laws trying to control these media. But the platforms are national and indeed international, making it undesirable to subject them to countless regulations by individual states.

The internet and social media have changed the very nature of speech by making it possible for anyone to speak immediately to a mass audience. The downside is that their speech can be hateful, harassing, false and harmful in other ways. One approach to this problem is extensive government regulation of what appears on social media. That would clearly violate the 1st Amendment, however, and we all should be concerned about giving government such power to regulate what we see and hear.

An alternative is to prohibit content moderation, requiring social media platforms to carry everything unless it falls into narrow categories of speech that is not protected by the Constitution. That is what Texas and to a lesser extent Florida are trying to do. But these laws also restrict the speech rights of private companies and promote even more hatred and violence on social media.

The best option is to leave content moderation to social media companies and encourage them to do a better job of it. This avoids the 1st Amendment problems of government regulation and the nightmare of unregulated social media. And that is the path the Supreme Court should take in the NetChoice cases by finding the laws in question unconstitutional.

Advertisement

Erwin Chemerinsky is a contributing writer to Opinion and the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. His latest book is “Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism.”

Business

David Ellison hits CinemaCon, vowing to make more movies with Paramount-Warner Bros.

Published

on

David Ellison hits CinemaCon, vowing to make more movies with Paramount-Warner Bros.

Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison made his case directly to theater owners Thursday, pledging to release a minimum of 30 films a year from the combined Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery company during a speech at the CinemaCon trade convention in Las Vegas.

“I wanted to look every single one of you in the eye and give you my word,” Ellison said in a brief on-stage speech, adding that Paramount has already nearly doubled its film lineup for this year with 15 planned releases, up from eight in 2025.

He also said all films will remain in theaters exclusively for 45 days, starting Thursday. Films will then go to streaming platforms in 90 days. The amount of time that films stay in theaters — known as windowing — has been a controversial topic for theater owners, as some studios reduced that period during the pandemic. Theater operators have said the shortened window has trained audiences to wait to watch films at home and cuts into theater revenues.

“I have dedicated the last 20 years of my life to elevating and preserving film,” said Ellison, clad in a dark jacket and shirt with blue jeans. “And at Paramount, we want to tell even more great stories on the big screen — stories that make people think, laugh, dream, wonder and feel — and we want to share them with as broad an audience as possible.”

Ellison’s CinemaCon appearance comes as more than 1,000 Hollywood actors and creatives have signed a letter opposing Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Supporters of the letter have said the deal would reduce competition in the industry and “further consolidate an already concentrated media landscape.”

Advertisement

Some theater operators have also questioned whether the combined company could achieve its goal of releasing 30 films a year, particularly after the cost cuts that are expected after the merger closes.

“People can speculate all they want — but I am standing here today telling you personally that you can count on our complete commitment,” Ellison said. “And we’ll show you we mean it.”

The speech came after a star-studded video directed by “Wicked: For Good” director Jon M. Chu that was shot on the Paramount lot on Melrose Avenue and showcased directors and actors including Issa Rae, Will Smith, Chris Pratt, James Cameron and Timothée Chalamet that are working with the company.

The video closed with “Top Gun” actor Tom Cruise perched atop the Paramount water tower.

“As you saw, the Paramount lot is alive again,” Ellison said after the video. “And we could not be more excited.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller

Published

on

Video: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller

new video loaded: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller

Ben Casselman, our chief economics correspondent, explains why wages are not keeping up with inflation and what that means for American workers and the economy.

By Ben Casselman, Nour Idriss, Sutton Raphael and Stephanie Swart

April 18, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Civil case against Alec Baldwin, ‘Rust’ movie producers advances toward a trial

Published

on

Civil case against Alec Baldwin, ‘Rust’ movie producers advances toward a trial

Nearly two years after actor Alec Baldwin was cleared of criminal charges in the “Rust” movie shooting death, a long simmering civil negligence case is inching toward a trial this fall.

On Friday, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a summary judgment motion requested by the film producers Rust Movie Productions LLC, as well as actor-producer Baldwin and his firm El Dorado Pictures to dismiss the case.

During a hearing, Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter set an Oct. 12 trial date.

The negligence suit was brought more than four years ago by Serge Svetnoy, who served as the chief lighting technician on the problem-plagued western film. Svetnoy was close friends with cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and held her in his arms as she lay dying on the floor of the New Mexico movie set. Baldwin’s firearm had discharged, launching a .45 caliber bullet, which struck and killed her.

The Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, N.M. in 2021.

Advertisement

(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)

Svetnoy was the first crew member of the ill-fated western to bring a lawsuit against the producers, alleging they were negligent in Hutchins’ October 2021 death. He maintains he has suffered trauma in the years since. In addition to negligence, his lawsuit also accuses the producers of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Prosecutors dropped criminal charges against Baldwin, who has long maintained he was not responsible for Hutchins’ death.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision denying the motions for summary judgment filed by Rust Movie Productions and Mr. Baldwin,” lawyers Gary Dordick and John Upton, who represent Svetnoy, said in a statement following the hearing. “He looks forward to finally having his day in court on this long-pending matter.”

Advertisement

The judge denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the negligence, emotional distress and punitive damages claims. One count directed at Baldwin, alleging assault, was dropped.

Svetnoy has said the bullet whizzed past his head and “narrowly missed him,” according to the gaffer’s suit.

Attorneys representing Baldwin and the producers were not immediately available for comment.

Svetnoy and Hutchins had been friends for more than five years and worked together on nine film productions. Both were immigrants from Ukraine, and they spent holidays together with their families.

On Oct. 21, 2021, he was helping prepare for an afternoon of filming in a wooden church on Bonanza Creek Ranch. Hutchins was conversing with Baldwin to set up a camera angle that Hutchins wanted to depict: a close-up image of the barrel of Baldwin’s revolver.

Advertisement

The day had been chaotic because Hutchins’ union camera crew had walked off the set to protest the lack of nearby housing and previous alleged safety violations with the firearms on the set.

Instead of postponing filming to resolve the labor dispute, producers pushed forward, crew members alleged.

New Mexico prosecutors prevailed in a criminal case against the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, in March 2024. She served more than a year in a state women’s prison for her involuntary manslaughter conviction before being released last year.

Baldwin faced a similar charge, but the case against him unraveled spectacularly.

On the second day of his July 2024 trial, his criminal defense attorneys — Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro — presented evidence that prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies withheld evidence that may have helped his defense . The judge was furious, setting Baldwin free.

Advertisement

Variety first reported on Friday’s court action.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending