Supreme Court to consider state laws regulating social media platforms

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

50% : The law seeks to combat alleged censorship in part by imposing several requirements on companies covered by the law: platforms are broadly prohibited from engaging in certain types of content moderation; platforms must notify a user if it removes or alters a post and include the reason for doing so; and platforms have to make general disclosures about their operations and policies, such as publishing their standards for "determining how to censor, deplatform and shadow ban.
50% : NetChoice then asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief, and a 5-4 court voted in June to put the law on hold while legal proceedings continued.
41% : The court blocked enforcement of two of its provisions, but a federal appeals court in New Orleans initially froze the injunction pending appeal, allowing the law to take effect.
38% : The state of Florida appealed the decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit sided with trade groups in concluding that most of the law is unconstitutional.
37% : "The best course for all is for this court to grant review now and establish clear bulwarks against state efforts that are antithetical to the First Amendment, which guards against government censorship, and vests private parties with control over what speech and speakers to allow on the forums they create," he said.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.