In recent years, social media regulation has been a common topic debated in the news. Two states in particular, Texas and Florida, recently passed laws regulating social media companies, prompting lawsuits that are now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

To gain a better understanding of these complex issues, The Likely Voter conducted a Q&A with Bill Duncan, Sutherland Institute’s constitutional law and religious freedom fellow.

The Likely Voter: The Supreme Court is hearing arguments about laws in Florida and Texas that regulate social media companies. What do these laws do and why are they being challenged?

Bill Duncan: Basically, the laws are meant to respond to the practice of “deplatforming,” meaning taking away a person’s ability to share their message with the general public. The laws say that while large social media platforms can bar someone from posting for viewpoint-neutral reasons, they cannot discriminate against certain perspectives. So, it would be OK to delete a user for posting pornography but not OK to remove them if that person always posts liberal or conservative views.

The Likely Voter: How do the respective cases differ, and what are the arguments of each respective side?

Bill Duncan: The two state laws are very much alike. The platforms are saying they are like a newspaper or television station that can’t constitutionally be forced to print a message they don’t agree with. The states are saying the companies are more like the power company and can’t deny some people the power to share ideas just because they don’t like their message, just as we wouldn’t want the power company to cut off power to some homes because those people are unpopular.

The Likely Voter: What legal questions could the court consider? What different kinds of rulings could it make, and when should we anticipate a decision?

Bill Duncan: The court could follow the simple free speech approach urged by the companies. Alternatively, it would break new ground for the court to decide that the states can regulate how the companies determine who can post. Interestingly, there is a little bit of a twist because the federal law that governs the internet says companies are not liable for their user’s posts. So the court could say that the companies can’t have it both ways – not being liable for content but then constitutionally protected in rejecting that content.

At this point in the term, we would probably expect a decision near the end, in June.

The Likely Voter: If these laws are deemed constitutional, does this open the door for internet censorship?

Bill Duncan: What’s interesting is that there will probably be some type of censorship either way – the social media companies can censor content, or the government will be able to determine whether their censorship is content neutral.

The Likely Voter: In Utah, there are talks of implementing age verification standards for social media platforms. What impact would a Supreme Court ruling on the Texas and Florida laws have on Utah?

Bill Duncan: Great question! At this point, there doesn’t seem to be a direct impact. Both situations raise potential constitutional questions, but different ones.

The one the court is now considering is about free speech, whether the government can compel companies to allow users to post speech (the NetChoice argument) or whether the companies will be free to exclude certain viewpoints (the states’ argument).

By contrast, regarding discussions in Utah, the media companies have concerns about privacy inherent in trying to verify a user’s age.

The age verification issue is trickier because it is common for laws to treat adults and children differently and to allow for distinctions based on age, since children and youth are considered uniquely vulnerable. If an age verification statute can navigate privacy concerns, it may very well be upheld, but that case will probably be very dependent on the exact facts of whatever specific situation the court is asked to address.

For a more in-depth perspective on this article, read our Insights piece here.