| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| | | | |
| | The panel majority cited about 130 precedents, while the dissent cited about 20. | | The panel majority cited about 130 precedents, while the dissent cited about 20. |
| − | == Panel Majority Reasoning == | + | == Panel Majority's Reasoning == |
| | {{cquote|Under these precedents, a speech host must make one of two showings to mount a First Amendment challenge. It must show that the challenged law either (a) compels the host to speak or (b) restricts the host’s own speech. The Platforms cannot make either showing. And (c) the Platforms’ counterarguments are unpersuasive.<ref>Slip op. p. 27.</ref>}} | | {{cquote|Under these precedents, a speech host must make one of two showings to mount a First Amendment challenge. It must show that the challenged law either (a) compels the host to speak or (b) restricts the host’s own speech. The Platforms cannot make either showing. And (c) the Platforms’ counterarguments are unpersuasive.<ref>Slip op. p. 27.</ref>}} |
| | + | {{cquote|The Platforms are nothing like the newspaper in Miami Herald. Unlike newspapers, the Platforms exercise virtually no editorial control or judgment. The Platforms use algorithms to screen out certain obscene and spam-related content. And then virtually everything else is just posted to the Platform with zero editorial control or judgment. “Something well north of 99% of th[is] content . . . never gets reviewed further. The content on a site is, to that extent, invisible to the [Platform].” ''NetChoice, LLC v. Moody'', 546 F. Supp. 3d 1082, 1092 (N.D. Fla. 2021). Thus the Platforms, unlike newspapers, are primarily “conduit[s] for news, comment, and advertising.” ''Miami Herald'', 418 U.S. at 258. And that’s why the Supreme Court has described them as “the modern public square.” ''Packingham'', 137 S. Ct. at 1737; ''see also Biden v. Knight First Amend. Inst.'', 141 S. Ct. 1220, 1224 (2021) (Thomas, J., concurring) (noting Platforms are also “unlike newspapers” in that they “hold themselves out as organizations that focus on distributing the speech of the broader public”). |
| | + | |
| | + | The Platforms’ own representations confirm this. They’ve told their users: “We try to explicitly view ourselves as not editors. ... We don’t want |
| | + | to have editorial judgment over the content that’s in your feed.” They’ve told the public that they “may not monitor,” “do not endorse,” and “cannot take responsibility for” the content on their Platforms. They’ve told Congress that their “goal is to offer a platform for all ideas.” And they’ve told courts—over and over again—that they simply “serv[e] as conduits for other parties’ speech.” |
| | + | <ref>Slip op. pp. 28-29 (footnotes omitted).</ref> |
| | | | |
| | == Judge Jones' Concurrence == | | == Judge Jones' Concurrence == |