The Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments about whether states can legally stop social media platforms from removing certain viewpoints.

What happened in the oral arguments? Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker represented the petitioner in the first case—the state of Florida—and argued for the constitutionality of his state’s law.

Whitaker argued the law doesn’t violate any sort of First Amendment rights of social media companies since they’re functionally “common carriers” that transport people or goods for a set fee. He argued the law upholds the First Amendment rights of individuals using social media platforms.

What did the other side have to say? NetChoice, LLC, represented by attorney Paul Clement, said that the Florida law discriminates based on the content of the speech being regulated. The U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that social media platforms are not “common carriers,” which don’t have First Amendment rights. She argued that social media platforms are inherently expressive entities and that their editorial decisions regarding the content on their website are protected by their First Amendment rights.

This story originally appeared in WORLD. © 2024, reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.