Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has proposed a controversial rule requiring social media companies to allow users to choose third-party content moderators. This move directly contradicts the Supreme Court's recent decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which upheld that content moderation by social media platforms is protected under the First Amendment. The ruling clarifies that the state has no authority to dictate how companies manage content, likening their moderation activities to the editorial decisions made by traditional publishers. Bailey's interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling raises concerns about the infringement of free speech rights.
The First Amendment protects social media content moderation decisions, making government intervention in these processes a violation of free speech rights.
Bailey's new rule neglects the Supreme Court's clear stance against state involvement in how platforms moderate their content.
Social media platforms engage in protected expressive activities similar to traditional publishers, thus the government shouldn't dictate moderation practices.
The essence of social media content curation mirrors traditional publishing's editorial choices, affirming its status under First Amendment protections.
Collection
[
|
...
]