SUBRAMANIAN: Florida, Texas laws violate free speech
Unsurprisingly, I am a student concerned with freedom of speech. It is a topic that I have extensively covered during my time as an opinions columnist. On the surface, freedom of speech is a clear-cut issue. Simply let people speak without fear of repression from the government. But does this rule apply to private entities? What if those private entities serve as public squares?
These questions now face the Supreme Court with two significant cases that can change the modern perception of free speech.
For context, after the Jan. 6 insurrection, many social media companies, such as social media platform X, Facebook and YouTube, limited former President Donald J. Trump's access to their services.
In response to this, Florida and Texas decided to act. In Texas, the state government passed HB 20, which would prohibit social media companies with more than 50 million active users in a month from censoring a user, their expression or their ability to receive the expression of another person based on their viewpoint.
HB 20 also requires social media platforms to turn over information to the government regarding how they moderate content.
Similarly, in Florida, Gov. Ron Desantis' (R-Fla.) administration passed SB 7072, which would make it illegal for social media companies to deplatform a candidate. Furthermore, the bill allows for the Attorney General of Florida to pursue action against social media companies that violate the law.
Supporters of the bill claim that these laws protect free speech by preventing social media companies from deplatforming individuals. According to Florida's Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez, " ... by signing SB 7072 into law, Florida is taking back the virtual public square as a place where information and ideas can flow freely."
Gov. Greg Abbott (R-T.X.) echoed Nuñez's stance, stating, "We will always defend the freedom of speech in Texas, which is why I am proud to sign House Bill 20 into law to protect First Amendment rights in the Lone Star State. Social media websites have become our modern-day public square. They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely."
Although both states may pass these bills thinking that they are protecting free speech, they have created legislation that runs antithetical to those views. Both laws give the government a large amount of power when it comes to regulating social media companies. Rather than preserving the public square, Texas and Florida have allowed the government to interfere in that space.
The First Amendment is meant to prevent Congress from regulating speech, not to force private entities to support speech they may disagree with. The Supreme Court has supported this standard in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council did not have to include the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB) in their St. Patrick's Day Parade.
Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter best explained the situation in his majority opinion, writing that "Disapproval of a private speaker's statement does not legitimize use of the Commonwealth's power to compel the speaker to alter the message by including one more acceptable to others." By the standard set by Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. a private organization is not obligated to share its platform under the pressure of a government. Sound familiar?
Supporters of the laws state that private companies must platform all views, especially as social media serves as a new public square. In the 5th Court of Appeals decision upholding Texas' social media law, the court relied on the 1980 case of Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, which ruled that a shopping center could not remove students for tabeling.
But, this case cannot be applied here. As mentioned in the amicus brief filed by Reddit, Inc., the shopping center in Pruneyard was not presenting speech in the same way that a social media company does. Also, the students' decision to table did not prevent the storeowner from exercising their own views. Furthermore, as stated in the Cato Institute's amicus brief, Pruneyard was not making editorial choices regarding the content allowed at the shopping center.
The Supreme Court has a big responsibility on its hands. If the court rules in favor of Texas and Florida, it opens the door for the government to have more control over the actions of private entities. Simply put, no one has the First Amendment right to compel a publisher or a private company into platforming their words. If given more power, there is likely going to be a chilling effect on publishers who support free speech, out of fear that the government could come after them.
That does not mean that social media companies should be given a free pass from their responsibilities. Even though they should not have to submit their editorial power to the government, they are also responsible for creating an environment that fosters free speech. What has been made clear is that social media companies are often willing to silence those on the basis of viewpoint when it comes to issues like COVID-19 and Hunter Biden's laptop.
As Generation Z utilizes social media as a primary form of activism, they should not be afraid that social media sites will suppress their views. These social media platforms should be embracing free speech, but Texas and Florida's method is not the way to accomplish this.
But hey, whadda I know?
Kiran Subramanian is a senior in the School of Arts and Sciences majoring in economics and political science. His column, "Whadda I Know," runs on alternate Tuesdays.
Columns, cartoons, letters and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Letters to the editor must be between 350 and 600 words. Commentaries must be between 600 and 900 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com and eic@dailytargum.com to be considered for publication.
