Appeals Court Blocks Most of Florida Social-Media Law That Barred Removal of Political Content

“We hold that it is substantially likely that social-media companies—even the biggest ones—are ‘private actors’ whose rights the First Amendment protects,” Judge Kevin C. Newsom, an appointee of former President

Donald Trump,

wrote in the opinion.

Judge Newsom, joined by two other Republican appointees, said the companies’ content-moderation decisions are “protected exercises of editorial judgment” that would be unconstitutionally burdened by the Florida law.

The 11th Circuit’s opinion stands in contrast to a court order by the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit, which earlier this month allowed Texas to begin enforcing more expansive restrictions on the ability of social-media platforms to remove content.

Both states said their laws were aimed at preventing what they viewed as anticonservative bias by leading tech giants. Tech companies have denied that they are biased or are interfering with political debate.

A pair of tech-industry trade associations sued to challenge both states’ laws. They have filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court that seeks to block the Texas law for now.

The Florida legislation, which Republican Florida Gov.

Ron DeSantis

signed last year, bars social-media sites from banning any candidate running for public office in the state, subjecting violators to fines of as much as $250,000 a day. It also restricts sites from limiting the visibility of content about political candidates, and bars censorship of “journalistic enterprises” based on their content. The law gives Florida residents the ability to bring lawsuits and recover statutory and punitive damages against companies that fail to apply their content standards consistently.

The plaintiffs, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represent major tech platforms including Facebook, Twitter and

Alphabet Inc.’s

Google, warned in court papers that the Florida law would weaken policing of unlawful content, including terrorist propaganda and hate speech.

“This ruling means platforms cannot be forced by the government to disseminate vile, abusive and extremist content under penalty of law,” said Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.

Florida Attorney General

Ashley Moody

tweeted that her office would “continue to vigorously defend Florida’s authority to demand accountability from Big Tech.”

A federal judge in Tallahassee last year granted a preliminary injunction against the Florida law hours before it was scheduled to take effect, ruling that the statute’s restrictions on content removal and its liability provisions likely violated the First Amendment and conflicted with federal law.

The 11th Circuit largely affirmed that decision. It did leave in place parts of the law requiring online platforms to make certain policy disclosures, including the standards they use to determine “how to censor, deplatform, and shadow ban.”

“We hold that it is substantially likely that social-media companies—even the biggest ones—are ‘private actors’ whose rights the First Amendment protects,” Judge Kevin C. Newsom, an appointee of former President

Donald Trump,

wrote in the opinion.

Judge Newsom, joined by two other Republican appointees, said the companies’ content-moderation decisions are “protected exercises of editorial judgment” that would be unconstitutionally burdened by the Florida law.

The 11th Circuit’s opinion stands in contrast to a court order by the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit, which earlier this month allowed Texas to begin enforcing more expansive restrictions on the ability of social-media platforms to remove content.

Both states said their laws were aimed at preventing what they viewed as anticonservative bias by leading tech giants. Tech companies have denied that they are biased or are interfering with political debate.

A pair of tech-industry trade associations sued to challenge both states’ laws. They have filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court that seeks to block the Texas law for now.

The Florida legislation, which Republican Florida Gov.

Ron DeSantis

signed last year, bars social-media sites from banning any candidate running for public office in the state, subjecting violators to fines of as much as $250,000 a day. It also restricts sites from limiting the visibility of content about political candidates, and bars censorship of “journalistic enterprises” based on their content. The law gives Florida residents the ability to bring lawsuits and recover statutory and punitive damages against companies that fail to apply their content standards consistently.

The plaintiffs, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represent major tech platforms including Facebook, Twitter and

Alphabet Inc.’s

Google, warned in court papers that the Florida law would weaken policing of unlawful content, including terrorist propaganda and hate speech.

“This ruling means platforms cannot be forced by the government to disseminate vile, abusive and extremist content under penalty of law,” said Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.

Florida Attorney General

Ashley Moody

tweeted that her office would “continue to vigorously defend Florida’s authority to demand accountability from Big Tech.”

A federal judge in Tallahassee last year granted a preliminary injunction against the Florida law hours before it was scheduled to take effect, ruling that the statute’s restrictions on content removal and its liability provisions likely violated the First Amendment and conflicted with federal law.

The 11th Circuit largely affirmed that decision. It did leave in place parts of the law requiring online platforms to make certain policy disclosures, including the standards they use to determine “how to censor, deplatform, and shadow ban.”