WASHINGTON–Today, NetChoice and CCIA—plaintiffs challenging Texas and Florida’s unconstitutional laws that curtail online speech and digital liberty—responded to the Solicitor General’s brief in the U.S. Supreme Court and urged the Court to strike down both laws in their entirety.
In its brief on our cases, NetChoice & CCIA v. Moody and NetChoice & CCIA v. Paxton, the Solicitor General discouraged the Court from reviewing certain so-called “disclosure” provisions and urged the Supreme Court to review—and strike down—the remainder of the laws. The Solicitor General explains that “[w]hen a social-media platform selects, edits, and arranges third-party speech for presentation to the public it engages in activity protected by the First Amendment.”
We agree. Our filings today urge the Court to review and strike down both laws in their entirety. Following the Solicitor General’s piecemeal approach would allow Florida and Texas to still violate the First Amendment by simply calling restrictions on free speech “disclosures.” Indeed, the laws’ disclosure requirements are backstops to the laws’ restrictions on content moderation and online speech—same ends, different means.
“States are trying to control what Americans see, read, hear, and say online,” said NetChoice Director of Litigation, Chris Marchese. “The Supreme Court should strike down Florida’s and Texas’s laws in full and reaffirm that the First Amendment serves as a bulwark of digital liberty—and against government control of online speech.”
“The Court’s decision will shape online speech and the internet for decades to come,” Marchese continued.
You can find the Solicitor General’s brief here and additional resources on NetChoice & CCIA v. Moody and NetChoice & CCIA v. Paxton.
Please contact Krista Chavez at press@netchoice.org with inquiries.