U.S. Take on State Laws Nearly 'Immunizes' Social Media, Says Texas
The U.S. government misapplies U.S. Supreme Court "precedents and offers a view of the First Amendment that would imperil some of its own regulatory programs,” but the solicitor general is right that the Supreme Court should grant certiorari in both…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Texas and Florida social media law cases, Texas said in a supplemental brief Monday (case 22-555). The U.S. position (see 2308150010) would leave state and federal governments "with little, if any, guidance on how to draw the line between regulable and non-regulable activities of social-media platforms,” wrote the state’s provisional attorney general Angela Colmenero (R). "By characterizing the central feature of the platforms -- hosting third-party content -- as speech, the federal government all but immunizes social-media companies from any substantive regulation. The First Amendment does not mandate such a result.” Despite that objection, Colmenero said the solicitor general's brief confirms "these cases present the exceptionally important question of whether the First Amendment precludes the government from requiring large social-media platforms to provide equal, non-discriminatory access to the public regardless of viewpoint.” Texas doesn't object to the solicitor general's recommendation to deny cert on the state law's disclosure requirements, she added.