Florida judge examines dispute over social media law – WFTV

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – A legal battle over a 2021 Florida state law that imposes restrictions on social media platforms is drawing closer scrutiny from a federal district judge.

Citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday remanded the case to U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, who issued a preliminary injunction in 2021 blocking the law under the First Amendment. The Atlanta appeals court upheld most of Hinkle's ruling in 2022.

But on July 1, the Supreme Court overturned the appeals court's ruling and remanded the case for further review. The Supreme Court did not resolve the constitutional issues, but said the 11th Circuit and another appeals court in a similar Texas case had failed to adequately consider the “superficial nature” of the objections to the laws, a crucial element in determining whether they meet constitutionality.

“To reach this conclusion, a court must examine all aspects of a statute, assess which are constitutional and which are not, and compare them. None of the courts has undertaken this necessary analysis,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her lead opinion.

Read: Florida senators support revised social media law

In a two-paragraph order Friday, the 11th Circuit said it was sending the Florida case “in its entirety back to the district court for further litigation consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.” There were no further statements, but social media industry groups quickly requested a conference before Hinkle, arguing that the 2021 preliminary injunction should remain in effect while the case proceeds.

According to a court record, the state and Hinkle had not responded to the request as of Monday morning.

Governor Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled House passed the bill after Facebook and Twitter – now known as X – banned former President Donald Trump from their platforms following the storming of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021.

Read: Work continues on the I-4 and Sand Lake interchange

For example, the law prohibited platforms from banning political candidates from their pages and required companies to publish – and consistently apply – standards on issues such as banning users or blocking their content. The law applied to social media platforms that generated annual gross revenue of more than $100 million or more than 100 million monthly active users. Companies could face heavy fines if they violated the restrictions.

Industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association challenged the constitutionality of the law. Following the Hinkle and 11th Circuit rulings, Florida appealed to the Supreme Court.

Although the Supreme Court did not issue a decision on the First Amendment, as it remanded the Florida and Texas cases for further consideration, the justices did address free speech issues.

The cases in Florida and Texas “present a complex conflict between two novel state laws and the alleged First Amendment rights of several of the largest social media platforms,” ​​Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in an opinion that partially concurred with the main opinion.

Read: Central Florida teachers receive a special surprise from Walt Disney World

“Some things are already clear. Not every possible action by a social media company will qualify as a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. But neither will every hypothetical regulation of such a company's business necessarily qualify for First Amendment protection. Beyond these general statements, it is difficult to say much more at this time,” she wrote.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, the industry associations filed a motion arguing that briefs should be filed in the 11th Circuit “so that the parties can address the implications of the Supreme Court's decision and whether this (appellate) court can resolve the prima facie conflict on the basis of this record or whether remand to the district court is necessary and, if so, whether the preliminary injunction should remain in effect pending the completion of all necessary further proceedings.”

But prosecutors from Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody's office and the law firm Cooper & Kirk PLLC filed a response arguing that the case should be remanded to the district court, saying the state was “barred from enforcing SB 7072 in full for three years despite the district court's failure to demonstrate that NetChoice is likely to succeed on its prima facie challenge because that standard is properly applied.”

The response stated that the file was “insufficient to assess the merits of NetChoice’s injunction application”.

For example, the state's lawyers wrote that a court would have to determine which platforms would be subject to the restrictions based on revenue and user thresholds contained in the law. They also said that findings of potential First Amendment violations would require findings of “different levels of editorial choice” associated with each platform's different features.

Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.

©2024 Cox Media Group