Washington, D.C. – Shoshana Weissmann, Digital Director and Fellow at the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank, recently highlighted the inherent challenges regulators face in attempting to control content moderation on social media platforms. In a recent social media post, Weissmann stated, "Excited for regulators to learn what a pain in the ass it will be to run a platform the can't remove content protected by the First Amendment." Her comment underscores a fundamental tension between government oversight and the First Amendment rights of online platforms.
Weissmann has been a vocal advocate for the editorial discretion of social media companies, arguing that mandating what content platforms must host infringes upon their own free speech rights. Her work at the R Street Institute frequently addresses the complexities of online content policy, including the role of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides platforms with immunity from liability for user-generated content and for their content moderation decisions. She contends that government intervention could lead to a "moderator's dilemma," forcing platforms to either over-moderate or cease moderation entirely to avoid liability.
This perspective comes amidst a wave of legislative efforts at the state level aimed at regulating how social media companies moderate content. States like Texas and Florida have enacted laws seeking to prevent platforms from removing or de-prioritizing user posts based on viewpoint, often citing concerns about perceived censorship. These laws have faced significant legal challenges, with social media industry groups arguing they violate the platforms' First Amendment rights to engage in editorial judgment.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently weighed in on these contentious issues, sending cases challenging the Texas and Florida laws back to lower courts for further review. While the Court did not issue a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of these state laws, the ongoing legal battles emphasize the complex interplay between free speech, platform governance, and government regulation in the digital age. The debate continues as policymakers grapple with balancing user protections, platform autonomy, and the broad implications for online discourse.