A Florida law governing internet access is currently being held up while a lawsuit challenging it continues. Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary order blocking almost all of SB7072, the controversial and broad regulation of social media platforms.This legislation was intended to limit social-media companies that are too big and too open. Hinkle's order stated that balancing ideas between private speakers is not an appropriate governmental interest. The law also discriminates against speakers who are not identical, partly due to an exemption for companies operating a theme park. This raises the bar in determining whether the law is in violation of the First Amendment, and Hinkles believes it most likely is.This legislation makes providers host speech that is not in compliance with their standards... and prohibits providers from speaking as they would otherwise.In May, Governor Ron DeSantis signed SB 7072. It limits the time web services can be launched to users. It prohibits the posting of political candidates and allows users to opt out of algorithmic sorting systems. There is also an antitrust violation blacklist for companies who break the rules. The rules don't apply to companies that own or operate a theme park, entertainment complex, as Disney and other media conglomerates have argued.CCIA and NetChoice, two industry groups, sued to stop the law's enforcement. They claimed that it would force social media platforms to publish offensive speech that is against their editorial policies. Judge Hinkle heard arguments on Monday from both the CCIA and NetChoice groups. He appeared skeptical of the law and called the exemption for theme parks a major constitutional issue.The injunction is also skeptical. It summarizes the law as follows:Florida's legislation imposes strict requirements on certain social media providers, but not all. This legislation only applies to large providers. It does not apply to smaller providers or other-identical providers. Providers who are jointly owned with large Florida theme parks are exempted. The law makes providers host speech that is contrary to their standards speech and prohibits providers from speaking in the same way as they would otherwise. The legislation is viewed from the Governor's point of view, as evidenced by numerous comments made by legislators. Parts of the legislation are in violation of a federal statute.Hinkle refers to Section 230 of The Communications Decency Act as the federal statute. This rule gives websites and apps broad latitude in deciding what material they host. Hinkle also mentions that social networks use editorial judgement to sort and prioritize content. Hinkle believes that a lot of this editorial judgment is likely to be protected by the First Amendment. While the state claims it supports the First Amendment, the plaintiffs do not. This is a soundbite, perhaps. Hinkle argues that the assertion is in direct contradiction to accepted constitutional principles.Like state legislators, federal lawmakers are keen to regulate social media. This includes several bills that aim to reduce the potential monopoly power for companies such as Facebook and Google as well as proposals to change Section 230. Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court Justice, also argued in April for regulation of social media. Florida's law, however, was among the most extensive rules that governed how companies could moderate social media platforms. It is not surprising that it has been stopped.
