Back
in
May,
an
11th
Circuit
appeals
court
panel
found
that
Florida’s
ridiculous
content
moderation
law
was clearly
unconstitutional,
mostly
upholding
a district
court
ruling saying
the
same
thing.
As
you’ll
recall,
Florida
passed
this
law,
mainly
in
response
to
Trump
being
banned
from
social
media,
that
limits
how
websites
can
moderate
content,
largely
focused
on
content
posted
by
politicians.
The
11th
Circuit
did
push
back
on
one
part
of
the
lower
court
decision,
saying
that
the
transparency
requirements
of
the
law
were
likely
constitutional.
As
you
also
know,
Texas
passed
a
similar
law
and
the
various
fights
over
both
states’
laws
have
been
mostly
intertwined.
Last
week,
the
5th
Circuit
issued its
bewildering
ruling (we’ll
have
more
on
that
soon)
that
basically
ignored
a
century’s
worth
of
1st
Amendment
law,
while
misreading
both
other
existing
precedent
and
literally
rewriting
Section
230
and
pretending
it
was
somehow
controlling
over
the
1st
Amendment.
Anyway,
over
the
summer,
Florida
had
told
the
lower
courts
that
it
intended
to
ask
the
Supreme
Court
to
hear
the
appeal
over
its
law,
and
on
Wednesday
that
finally
happened.
Florida
has petitioned
the
Supreme
Court
to
review the
decision,
highlighting
the
two
key
questions
it
sees
from
the
ruling.
While
the
Supreme
Court
does
not
need
to
take
the
case,
it
seems
likely
it
will.
It’s
possible
that
an
appeal
on
the
5th
Circuit’s
ruling
will
get
consolidated
into
this
case
as
well,
or
perhaps
it
will
remain
separate.
Florida
presents
these
as
the
two
questions
the
appeal
seeks
to
answer:
1.
Whether
the
First
Amendment
prohibits
a
State
from
requiring
that
social-media
companies
host
third-party
communications,
and
from
regulating
the
time,
place,
and
manner
in
which
they
do
so.2.
Whether
the
First
Amendment
prohibits
a
State
from
requiring
social-media
companies
to
notify
and
provide
an
explanation
to
their
users
when
they
censor
the
user’s
speech.
Both
of
these
questions
could
have
a
huge
impact
on
the
future
of
the
internet.
The
answer
to
both
of
these should
be
yes. Indeed,
there’s
some
argument
that
it’s
a
little
weird
that
Florida
constructed
the
questions
in
a
way
where
they
want
the
answer
to
be
“no”
rather
than
“yes.”
But,
beyond
that,
this
case
is
going
to
be
a
big,
big
deal.
It’s
unclear
if
Florida
deliberately
waited
for
the
5th
Circuit’s
opinion,
but
the
petition
plays
up
the
circuit
split
between
the
5th
and
11th
Circuits.
The
Fifth
Circuit
split
with
the
decision
below
on
the
threshold
question
of
whether
the
platforms
are
speaking
at
all
when
they
censor
a
user’s
speech.The
Eleventh
Circuit
below
said
“yes.”
It
reasoned
that
“[w]hen
a
platform
selectively
removes
what
it
perceives
to
be
incendiary
political
rhetoric,
pornographic
content,
or
public-health
misinformation,
it
conveys
a
message
and
thereby
engages
in
‘speech’
within
the
meaning
of
the
First
Amendment.”
App.19a–20a.
And
it
reached
that
conclusion
because
it
thought
that
“editorial
judgments”
are
protected
by
the
First
Amendment.
App.20a.The
Fifth
Circuit
said
“no.”
In
rejecting
the
Eleventh
Circuit’s
reasoning,
it
explained
that
the
Eleventh
Circuit’s
“‘editorial-judgment
principle’
conflicts
with”
this
Court’s
cases.
Paxton,
2022
WL
4285917,
at
*39.
As
the
Fifth
Circuit
pointed
out,
this
Court
has
held
that
some
hosts
can
be
denied
the
“right
to
decide
whether
to
disseminate
or
accommodate
a”
speaker’s
message
That
certainly
tees
things
up
for
the
5th
Circuit
ruling
to
be
consolidated
into
this
case.
Much
of
the
argument
by
Florida
is
basically
just
repeating
the
5th
Circuit’s
nonsense
ruling,
which
is
to
be
expected.
I
don’t
need
to
go
over
why
it’s
all
wrong
—
that’s
pretty
well
established.
I
will
have
more
soon
on
why
multiple
Supreme
Court
justices
would
need
to
completely
reverse
themselves
on
earlier
decisions
to
agree
with
both
Texas
and
Florida,
but
that’s
not
impossible
these
days.
Either
way,
the
Supreme
Court
is
likely
to
hear
this
and
it’s
just
the
future
of
the
open
internet
and
editorial
freedom
at
stake.
Florida
Officially
Asks
Supreme
Court
To
Review
Its
Social
Media
Content
Moderation
Law
5th
Circuit
Awards
Immunity
To
Cop
Who
Decided
A
Suicidal
Man
Should
Be
Tased
While
He
Had
A
Noose
Around
His
Neck
Klobuchar’s
Link
Tax
Is
Back…
And
Somehow
Even
Worse?
Helps
Trumpist
Grifters
Get
Free
Money
&
No
Moderation
From
Google
Ohio
Supreme
Court
Says
There’s
Nothing
Wrong
With
Cops
Seizing
A
$31,000
Truck
Over
An
$850
Criminal
Offense
