The Supreme Court is deciding what you get to see on the web.

This week, the Supreme Court will hear 2 cases that will impact what you see on social media. The question is, can social media outlets decide what can and cannot be published? 

According to cnn.com,
“On Monday, the court will consider arguments on whether to give Texas and Florida significantly more control over social media platforms and their content, highlighting the central role that those services now play in modern American life.
The crux of the matter: Can these platforms decide for themselves what content goes on their sites — and what can be removed?” 

Of course, the big question here is, is restricting content moderation constitutional? 

Officials from both states are saying that the laws will keep social media sites from discriminating against “conservative speech.”  

So, I have a question, according to the constitution who deserves the right to free speech? does freedom of speech only apply to governments and individual citizens, or does it also apply to private businesses? 

How about a newspaper? Is a newspaper required to publish all letters that are sent to the editor, or can they pick and choose what they print and publish online. 

How about radio and television? 

Back in the day, there used to be something called the Fairness Doctrine. That required radio and television to offer up equal time to opposing political views. The Fairness Doctrine was put into place by the FCC in 1949 but was removed in 1987. Is it possible that we need something like the Fairness Doctrine for social media? 

One more thought. 

How would these laws impact Internet scammers. What kind of free speech are they allowed to have?  

This is the kind of thing that turns my brain into a pretzel. I have a headache now. 

US Supreme Court prepares to hear landmark social media cases | CNN Business