Brief details impact of anti-content moderation laws on marginalized groups
On Thursday evening, a coalition of a dozen tech and civil society groups submitted an 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.
The brief makes the case that by tying the hands of platforms that would otherwise take down hate speech and misinformation, the new laws effectively amplify harmful content. The brief argues:
“Although SB 7072 and HB 20 ostensibly promote “equal treatment” for all voices, by indiscriminately amplifying all content, they will enable extremist content to thrive at the expense of civil discourse and space for marginalized voices. Of course, there are places for lawful-but-extreme voices online, but HB 20 and SB 7072 would force these voices on everyone, including in spaces where the harms will fall most on marginalized groups.”
The organizations signing the brief include:
- Access Now
- Chamber of Progress
- Consumer Technology Association
- HONR Network
- Information Technology Industry Council
- Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
- Interactive Advertising Bureau
- IP Justice
- LGBT Tech
- Stop Child Predators
- Washington Center for Technology Policy Inclusion
Chamber of Progress also submitted briefs as Texas’s and Florida’s anti-content moderation laws were heard in the lower courts.
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.