Supreme Court hears arguments in Moody v. NetChoice over Florida law limiting social platforms’ moderation

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in Moody v. NetChoice, a high‑stakes challenge to a Florida law that bars large social platforms from deplatforming or applying content restrictions in certain speaker‑ and content‑based ways. Counsel for Florida told the justices the statute regulates conduct — “hosting” and transmission of user speech — not protected editorial expression; the platforms’ lawyer urged that the law compels and discriminates against editorial judgments and therefore violates the First Amendment.

Mister Whitaker, arguing for the state, told the court that ‘‘the platforms achieved that success by marketing themselves as neutral forums for free speech’’ but now treat themselves like newspapers and insist on a broad First Amendment right to censor. He urged the Court to view the statute as targeting content moderation of user‑generated material and said a number of large sites resemble traditional common‑carrier activities that states may regulate.

Mister Clement, representing the platform respondents, countered that the statute ‘‘interferes with editorial discretion, compels speech, discriminates on the basis of content,…