Like many college students, I spend a significant amount of time on social media. It feels like the entire world is at my fingertips. I follow friends, family, brands, athletes, influencers and media outlets, all of which expose me to a wealth of information. 

But not all of this information is credible: The prevalence of misinformation on social media has become an increasing concern. In response, companies such as Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — have taken on the authority of censorship. 

However, the Texas and Florida legislatures passed laws in 2021 which put civilians at risk by preventing large social media companies from censoring their platforms. As a result, NetChoice — a coalition of trade associations, eCommerce businesses and online consumers — will face Texas and Florida in front of the Supreme Court this term.

The Texas law prohibits large social media companies from de-platforming or censoring accounts based on their views or geographic location, while the Florida law prohibits them from banning political candidates. 

The First Amendment explicitly states that Congress cannot pass a law that abridges the freedom of speech. However, the Constitution does not address whether private companies can make their own decisions regarding what is said on their online platform.

In a speech, Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott claimed the First Amendment is under assault because of overzealous social media censors. He said social media should not be censored because the United States was “built on free speech and healthy public debate.” 

“Healthy debate” does not consist of false, misleading or defamatory information. Abbott and other conservatives compare social media platforms to the “modern-day public square” — the place where everyone goes to talk or exercise their freedom of speech.

The internet, not specific social media platforms, is the modern-day public square. Social media apps are similar to the various shops and restaurants in a town square. In the same way that private entities are entitled to establish their own rules regarding free speech, social media apps have the right to do so as well. 

If a social media user feels that their freedom of speech is being suppressed by a particular app, they have the choice to stop using that app. They can even start their own social media platform, as former President Donald Trump did with Truth Social.

The internet is not censored to the same degree as social media apps. Because of the lack of regulation on the internet, anyone can create their own blog or website and express themselves freely. Private entities have the right to regulate content, which doesn’t necessarily infringe on an individual’s right to free speech, but rather is a part of the terms and conditions of using the platform.

From Trump’s notorious posts on X, formerly known as Twitter, to misinformation about the Russia-Ukraine war to various forms of hate speech, social media users have been bombarded with harmful content on a daily basis. Censoring harmful or false content on social media is not biased. 

The Texas and Florida laws were proposed by conservative governors in large states that lean right. The proponents of these laws argued they were protecting the free speech rights of social media users. 

One reason for the conservative advocacy of these laws is a reaction to Trump’s ban from X after the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection (Trump has since been welcomed back onto X by Elon Musk, its new owner). 

They also do not want social media companies to censor “political information” that is often misleading or outright false, but which is used to sway public opinion. Social media companies will censor false or harmful information, like posts arguing that the 2020 election was not legitimate. 

Over the next few months, the Supreme Court will hear the arguments and the justices will deliberate whether big tech companies can censor social media users in Texas and Florida. Not only will this determine the extent to which false and harmful content will be spread to users in these states, but it will also create a precedent that could likely determine whether or not social media can be censored in other states. 

Hopefully, the Court rules in favor of the tech companies, or else we may be scrolling through Instagram pondering whether each and every post is true.

Laya Albert is a sophomore writing about the significant issues in states beyond California. Her column, “The Other 49,” runs every other Monday.