Upshot: SCOTUS vacates and remands the NetChoice cases because of the facial challenge irregularity that came up at oral arguments, but the Court takes the time to explain how it views the First Amendment principles at issue, with a not-at-all-disguised swipe at the 5th Circuit.
This not only makes it fairly clear that the content moderation laws' main thrust will not survive, but it also puts to bed the idea that "just regulating how the algorithms present content" does not implicate the First Amendment.
You know my strange position that the algorithms give the company actual knowledge of the content on the site. This judgment feels like it reinforces that; engaging in speech presupposes knowledge of what is being said. I trust you to tell me how I’m wrong.
SCOTUS may have just declared the US president is a god-king to whom the Constitution does not apply, but at least they didn’t also tear down the free and open Internet with it.
So … mixed blessings?
Upshot: SCOTUS vacates and remands the NetChoice cases because of the facial challenge irregularity that came up at oral arguments, but the Court takes the time to explain how it views the First Amendment principles at issue, with a not-at-all-disguised swipe at the 5th Circuit.
That is not remotely what this case was about. It’s about state governments trying to decide whether website-owners are forced to keep user-generated content they don’t want on their sites. So if anyone’s trying to decide what you see online, it’s the gov’ts of Florida and Texas.
There's two edges to that sword. The ruling affirms Tech companies' 1st amendment right to control what is seen by the public. Whether this is on the whole a good or bad thing entirely depends on what happens from here on out.
