In a plot twist that might make TikTok’s algorithm blush, the Supreme Court on Thursday lightly tapped the brakes on a new Florida and Texas law that would have handed social media companies a fresh new hobby: government-imposed content moderation. The laws, which were celebrated by their states as brave forays into the wild west of free speech, would stop platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and yes even your aunt’s favorite recipe-sharing site, from removing political posts they disapprove of. Critics, of course, have other words for it, ranging from “unconstitutional” to “please don’t make us moderate hate speech with oven gloves on.”
The justices in their ever-polished deliberation chambers voted 5-4 to keep the status quo comfortably unchanged while they ponder the matter more rigorously this fall. Justice Elena Kagan presumably channeled her inner digital strategist and voted with the conservative majority to maintain the pause, although she did not issue a separate opinion, leaving citizens and law clerks alike to speculate wildly about her motivations. Justice Alito, apparently unfazed by TikTok or subtlety, issued a 10-page dissent expressing his fervent belief that allowing companies to remove posts is akin to letting bouncers toss out patrons for wearing the wrong hat.
The technology industry, an ensemble not known for understatement, greeted the Court’s decision with a collective exhale that could power a small server farm. Companies such as Meta and X (the latter formerly known as a bird-themed microblogging service) had argued that laws requiring them to leave all political content untouched would violate the First Amendment faster than you can say “Section 230.” Naturally, free speech advocates on both ends of the ideological spectrum joined in, displaying a rare moment of unity that briefly confused everyone.
So while the Supreme Court prepares to examine whether states can legislate how platforms moderate content without trampling on constitutional toes, everyone else is left in that classic legal limbo where the laws are paused but the speculation rages on. Meanwhile, users continue to post, delete, block, and scroll at a pace that far outstrips most judicial calendars.
This fall, the Supreme Court will decide if your right to post spicy memes is constitutionally protected or merely an algorithmic suggestion.