The tech plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which temporarily halted Texas’s law from enforcement (in a 5–4 vote) pending full review scotusblog.com .
As of 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear both the Florida and Texas social media law cases (NetChoice v. Moody and NetChoice v. Paxton) scotusblog.com scotusblog.com . The Court will decide if states can bar private digital platforms from engaging in content moderation or if such laws violate the First Amendment. The Biden administration has filed in support of the tech companies, arguing these state laws are unconstitutional scotusblog.com . The outcome will be hugely consequential for online speech: if the Texas law is upheld, platforms might have to host even the vilest content (extremism, propaganda, harassment) with little recourse, undercutting their own community standards. If struck down, it will reaffirm that private entities cannot be forced by governments to carry speech against their will – a fundamental principle of free expression.
Regardless of the legal fate, the political drive behind these laws reflects a narrative cultivated by Trump and Republican legislators: that social media companies – notably Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube – systematically silence conservatives, and thus government must step in. Multiple congressional hearings have been held where Republicans grilled tech CEOs about individual content decisions (like Twitter’s brief 2020 banning of a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, or Facebook’s fact-checks). Often, evidence of an anti-conservative purge is anecdotal or debunked; studies by MIT, Stanford, and even Facebook’s own data have shown right-leaning content often performs extremely well online (sometimes better than left-leaning content) vox.com . As Vox reported, “Research has shown platforms do not discriminate against conservative content. If anything, they do the exact opposite.” vox.com . Nevertheless, the perception of bias remains powerful among the base. Republican officials have thus increasingly tried to coerce tech platforms into changing policies. Aside from Florida and Texas, other GOP states have proposed copycat bills, and in 2023, some House Republicans introduced a bill to strip platforms of Section 230 immunity if they “censor” lawful speech.
This approach – using state power to limit a private company’s content moderation – is a form of government control of media, just not traditional media. It essentially aims to compel online media to carry certain speech. As such, many civil libertarians see it as just as dangerous as book banning. The firestorm over “big tech censorship” intensified after Trump’s deplatforming: Republican officials frequently suggested retaliation, from antitrust lawsuits (Trump’s DOJ did sue Google and Facebook, ostensibly on competition grounds) to calls to treat social media as common carriers or public utilities. Some have even floated creating a government-run social platform to guarantee access (though that has not materialized).
It’s worth noting that the same Florida government that passed the Social Media law also targeted specific private companies for their speech. In 2022, after Disney’s CEO spoke out against the “Don’t Say Gay” law, Governor DeSantis and Florida’s legislature moved to strip Disney of its special municipal district status – widely seen as punishment for Disney’s stance. “If Disney wants to pick a fight, they chose the wrong guy,” DeSantis said, essentially admitting retaliation. This battle is ongoing in court as Disney alleges First Amendment retaliation by the state. It showcases how under the influence of Trump’s combative approach, Republican officials have become increasingly willing to wield government power to punish corporate or media speech they don’t like – whether it’s a theme park company or Twitter’s former moderation policies.
Impact on Online Discourse