The following statement is attributed to Kate Tummarello, Executive Director of Engine:
Statement:
“Today’s decision is a win for Internet companies, including startups, who engage in content moderation to keep their corners of the Internet safe, healthy, and relevant for their users. State laws that would dictate how Internet platforms host, present, and moderate user content are unworkable for startups and, as explained by the Court, unworkable with the First Amendment.”
Background:
Today, the Supreme Court decided the Moody v. NetChoice et al. and NetChoice et al. v. Paxton cases, ultimately remanding them back to lower courts, but not before explaining why the laws were likely to run afoul of the First Amendment.
Engine earlier filed an amicus brief, underscoring how content moderation necessarily looks different across all kinds of Internet companies hosting all kinds of content and serving all kinds of users. In its majority decision, the Court acknowledged that reality and said lower courts needed to analyze the broader impact the laws would have across the Internet.
Startups moderate content as a business necessity—to build unique businesses, stand apart, and ultimately grow and succeed. While the Florida and Texas laws at issue have applicability thresholds, those thresholds are arbitrary, don’t solve the laws’ First Amendment problems, and don’t keep the laws from impacting startups and mid-sized Internet companies that are planning for regulatory and legal burdens as they grow. The Court’s analysis makes it clear that Internet companies engaged in the expressive act of hosting, curating, moderating, and removing user content have their own First Amendment protections against government-compelled speech.
