On Tuesday, the “neo-Brandeisian” organization Open Markets Institute submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the cases of NetChoice & CCIA v. Moody / Paxton, endorsing “common carrier” legal theories spread by the far-right – even adding that it would like to see more states pass similar laws.

The application of common carrier laws to social media sites would require online platforms to carry all viewpoints, including hate speech, anti-Semitism, election denialism, and terrorist speech. While federal courts have tended to reject the application of common carrier status to social media platforms, right wing judges, including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, have promoted the idea.

“The Open Markets Institute is so consumed by anti-tech derangement that they are siding with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in keeping hate speech online,” said Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich. “While Open Markets naively portrays its position as pro-competition, the clear goal of these laws is to hobble content moderation, requiring platforms to carry toxic speech. Open Markets Institute – a pillar of the neo-Brandeisian “antimonopoly” movement – has officially lost the plot.”

In December, Chamber of Progress and a coalition of a dozen tech and civil society groups submitted their own amicus brief to the Supreme Court in NetChoice & CCIA v. Moody / Paxton, urging the Court to overturn Texas and Florida anti-content moderation laws. The brief argues that the Court should affirm platforms’ First Amendment right to curate content and highlights the impact of anti-content moderation laws on marginalized groups.

###

Chamber of Progress (progresschamber.org) is a center-left tech industry policy coalition promoting technology’s progressive future.  We work to ensure that all Americans benefit from technological leaps, and that the tech industry operates responsibly and fairly.  

Our corporate partners do not have a vote on or veto over our positions. We do not speak for individual partner companies and remain true to our stated principles even when our partners disagree.