State social media regulations return to Tallahassee after trip to U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. District Courthouse for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee. (Photo by Michael Moline/Florida Phoenix)
Following years of legal wrangling, including a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal judge said Tuesday that he remains flummoxed about what the Legislature meant to accomplish by trying to limit social media content moderation.
Northern District of Florida Judge Robert Hinkle said during proceeding in Tallahassee that he's still 'trying to figure out what the Legislature said, what it meant,' with the 2021 law.
James Uthmeier inherited the case when Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed him Florida attorney general earlier this year. The legislation (SB 7072) came at DeSantis' insistence in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump's banishment from social media platforms following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by some of his supporters.
NetChoice and co-plaintiff Computer & Communications Industry Association represent a number of the biggest social media companies, including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, Apple, and Pinterest.
Hinkle issued an injunction against enforcing the law in 2021.
Tuesday, during a hearing on the state's motion to dismiss, Hinkle said, 'I think I'm on my own' in deciding whether the law applies only to social media companies or to all websites.
Even the Supreme Court couldn't figure out how to interpret the law, Hinkle said. That question became the theme of the hearing, with the judge saying he would decide what the law means and then order the parties to exchange evidence about to whom its provisions apply.
CCIA said the Legislature didn't do a particularly clear job defining some elements of the law.
'We have done as much as we can to interpret this vague statute,' Stephanie Joyce, senior vice president for CCIA, told reporters following the hearing.
The law prohibits social media platforms from deplatforming any candidate for statewide political office. It allows the Florida Election Commission to fine platforms (defined as companies with annual gross revenues of more than $100 million or more than 100 million monthly active users) $250,000 per day and $25,000 per day for any candidate for other offices.
The state questioned whether CCIA and NetChoice were the correct plaintiffs to bring the suit, saying that neither is 'actually regulated by the law' and that they lack any cause of action.
Ownership, structure, and financials of the tech companies could help the state refine its argument, its attorneys suggested.
NetChoice's lawyers insisted the case is 'quintessential' in that it applies to a broad swath of its members.
'Florida stated three years ago they knew exactly or very closely who was covered by the statute. Then, when it suited their litigation tactics, they decided they didn't know what their own statute meant. As Judge Hinkle said today, it is quite remarkable that a state which is poised to lodge and impose monetary damages on companies now tells several courts they don't know who was covered by the statute,' Joyce said.
When DeSantis signed the bill in 2021, he said, 'Maybe this isn't as much the bearded tyrant in the military fatigues — you know, maybe the person is in pajamas on their laptop drinking a soy latte in Silicon Valley. You know what, when they have the power to silence you, you take it seriously.'
Authors of the bill included language asserting that 'social media platforms have transformed into the new public town square,' while CCIA replies that its members are private concerns.
'There is nothing more violative of the First Amendment than a government entity telling a private actor what to say,' Joyce said.
Determining First Amendment protections for certain companies could come down to whether they are American or foreign-owned and what countries a company makes its executive decisions in.
Joyce argued the state is avoiding key legal question in the case.
'The question that Judge Hinkle from the bench opined on today, which is that the Supreme Court stated very clearly that the state of Florida and the state of Texas may not tell a social media website, for example, Facebook, what it can post. That is a question Florida is struggling strenuously to avoid,' she said.
Hinkle said he would respond to the motion to dismiss and hopes to 'get to this pretty quickly.' The matters of the case change depending on future legislative action, too, Hinkle reminded the parties.
The state acknowledged First Amendment concerns with the law, but argued that the case as presented doesn't implicate those concerns.
The Texas case involves a similar law but has languished since April 17.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Property taxes, book bans and resolutions: Three Grand Forks lawmakers discuss recent session
Jun. 6—GRAND FORKS — Through an hour-long conversation looking back on the 2025 legislative session, three Grand Forks state lawmakers found moments of agreement and professed similar opinions on issues more than they disagreed. Rep. Nels Christianson, Rep. Erik Murphy and Rep. Zac Ista, all from Grand Forks, went through some of the topics from the session with different mindsets but familiar answers. For example, on the matter of property tax and Gov. Kelly Armstrong's bill — which expanded the primary tax credit to a maximum $1,600 and capped local-level tax increases to no more than 3% annually — Christianson said they found some common ground. Property tax was one of the several issues discussed during the legislative wrap-up, held at the Grand Forks County office building on Thursday, June 5. All 18 members of districts 17, 18, 19, 20, 42 and 43 were invited, but Ista, Murphy and Christianson were the only ones in attendance. Joel Heitkamp, host of KFGO News and Views and a former state senator, served as moderator. Some issues involved public funding to private schools, Medicaid, the North Dakota Republican Party and what bills the legislators worked on. Property tax was among the most newsworthy issues during the session. Armstrong discussed it prior to his November election and his bill, HB 1176, was not passed until May 2, near the end of the session. "Did we deliver relief? Yes," Christianson said. "Reform? Maybe not so much." Murphy said property taxes are typically something outside of the Legislature's lane, but that he begrudgingly supported Armstrong's property tax bill. "Property tax is part of the reality of living in a nation such as ours," he said. "Property tax, to me, is a local issue." Ista, the only Democrat among the three, said there will be a trade-off. Homeowners will get some tax relief, but political subdivisions will have to figure out how to continue to pay for things. "Now the burden is going to fall on our local, county, city, school districts to see how to live within this new reality. I think it's going to be a challenge going forward for the state and locals to balance it," he said. One issue on which all three agreed was the matter of banning books. Each legislator was against it, though they had different thoughts on the matter. Ista said he has voted against every book censorship bill, and will continue to do so every chance he gets. "The issues in our state that affect our kids are not what books are displayed where in our libraries," he said. "I love taking my kids to Grand Forks Public Library and watch them go down that big pink slide, and I've never once worried about what book they might stumble into." Christianson said that, under no circumstances, should books be banned. Instead, he said, they should be placed in the appropriate area, and that he wants his daughters to be able to go around the children's section of the library and look at any books they would like in that section. "I absolutely do not support taking anything out of the ability for people to check out from the library," he said. "I just want to make sure that ... parents have a chance to be in the loop, just that parents can understand what their children are reading, especially in the younger ages." Murphy said there are better things to do and think about in North Dakota than book bans, and he mentioned Senate Bill 2307, which would have required libraries to make material considered sexually explicit unavailable to minors, and could penalize failure to comply. One issue he took with the bill was the difference between what was said about it versus what it would really do, he said. "What it really did is, opened up every library in the state, whether it's UND's library, it opened up the (North Dakota Museum of Art)," he said. "If there's a nude in there, that could be considered pornography, therefore we need to take that picture down." Two resolutions that failed during the session — House Concurrent Resolution 3013, which requested the U.S. Supreme Court overturn gay marriage, and House Concurrent Resolution 3020, declaring that "Christ is King" of North Dakota — drew disagreement between Christianson, who voted "yes" on both, and the other two legislators, who voted against them. Christianson's thought on HCR 3013 was that issues such as marriage need to be defined at the state level, not through a court decision, referencing Obergefell vs. Hodges, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding same-sex marriages. Ista said that it was probably the darkest day of the session for him when the resolution came to the floor, and that he was caught "flat-footed" by it. He said he had thought everyone had moved beyond the issue of marriage equality. Murphy said it's not up to him to decide who any individual should love. He also said that during this recent school year, he knew of students who were transgender and transitioning. The resolution sends the wrong message to North Dakota residents and creates a division in the state, he said. As for HCR 3020, Murphy simply said "absolutely not" when Heitkamp asked if he thought North Dakota should be in the business of declaring that Christ is king. Ista said that the faith leaders in his life respected a foundational concept of no official religions in America, and that, while he respects the religion of his colleagues, the state should be accommodating to all religions and not place one above the others. Christianson said the resolution would have no effect on state policies, claiming that he voted for what he believes is the truth. "It was simply a statement, and that's a statement that I will make every day, that Christ is king," he said.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Montana Public Service Commission finally stands up to NorthWestern Energy
Electricity pylons (Photo by Getty Images). It's fair to say Montanans have been raked over the coals for electricity costs by the utility companies that have followed in the wake of the disastrous utility deregulation bill passed by the 1997 Legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Marc Racicot. The faulty premise on which the measure was sold to the Legislature was that Montanans would enjoy lower electricity costs thanks to customers having 'choice' to shop among the various utilities that were supposed to materialize. But that didn't happen. The opponents to the measure cited the simple fact that Montana already had the lowest price for electricity in the region, thanks in large part because Montana customers had already paid the Montana Power Company, as a regulated monopoly, to build and maintain a series of hydroelectric dams. As one long-time lineman quipped 'you can't make electricity cheaper than water running downhill.' Driven by the Montana Power Company's intent to change from a utility to a telecommunications company, Touch America, the 200+ page bill was jammed through in the last weeks of the session with most legislators having no idea what was in it — nor the consequences of their actions. Yet the Republican legislative majorities voted to grant Montana Power's wish, bolstered by the Butte Democrats — except for brave Danny Harrington who didn't kow-tow to the utility. It was arguably the worst decision ever made by Montana's lawmakers and governor. First to go were the dams, which were sold to an out-of-state utility, Pennsylvania Power and Light. Next to go was the Montana Power Company itself, taking with it the pensions and stock holdings of Montanans who thought of it as 'our' power company. Then Touch America, headed by Bob Gannon, the former CEO of the Montana Power Company, went bankrupt. In the meantime, Montanans' electricity bills began their skyward climb as the dams were sold yet again, each time for a higher price, that was then loaded on customers. Realizing the extent of the damage caused by the deregulation debacle, the Legislature finally decided to re-regulate in 2001. NorthWestern Energy is now our 'regulated' electricity supplier since acquiring the system in 2000. It's fair to say Montana's Public Service Commission has not been diligent in holding down rates, which have gone from the lowest to the highest in the region. But here's the good news. Thanks to Brad Molnar, who was a commissioner from 2004-2012, was re-elected in 2024, and is now the new president of the Commission, NorthWestern has finally hit resistance to its unending requests for rate increases. In a tremendous article, Daily Montanan's deputy editor, Keila Szpaller, lays out in detail Molnar's firm stance against the increase. Citing a 50-year old law, NorthWestern claims the Commission did not take timely action and raised rates nearly 17% on May 25 without Commission approval. Molnar says the increase 'will be crushing to many low-income people, many of whom are simply elderly, that are being handed their butts every day in property tax increases, in utilities, insurance for their houses, insurance for their cars. You name it. This is a very, very bad time to be a poor person, and this will make it worse.' If the rate increase is unjustified, NorthWestern will have to refund the over-charge plus 10%. As Molnar put it: 'It is time for them to grow up and quit playing the victim and actually take responsibility for their actions.' We'll see what happens, but for now, Montanans owe a debt of gratitude to Commissioner Molnar for finally standing up to NorthWestern instead of rubber-stamping their endless rate increases.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gov. McMaster again vetoes bill dismissing gun charge that hasn't been a crime for 15 months
A law passed in March 2024 made it legal for adults to carry a handgun openly or concealed without a permit. Legislation dismissing pending cases for unlawful carry was again vetoed by Gov. Henry McMaster on May 22, 2025. (Stock photo illustration by Getty Images) COLUMBIA — South Carolinians will continue to face sentencing for a gun charge that's no longer a crime after Gov. Henry McMaster again vetoed a bill erasing the pending cases. A law signed by McMaster 15 months ago made it legal for adults to carry handguns without a permit and allowed past convictions for unlawful carry to be expunged. It set a five-year deadline — until March 2029 — for expungement applications. One conviction per person can be expunged. But the law didn't address pending cases. Last year, McMaster vetoed legislation to dismiss those charges. The Legislature tried again this year with another version of the bill, which both chambers passed unanimously. But the governor vetoed that too. In his May 22 veto letter, the governor made clear his 'fundamental objections to the legislation remain unchanged.' As the state's former U.S. attorney and two-term attorney general, McMaster said he's wary of limiting prosecutors' authority and discretion to resolve those cases. 'Every case is unique and the prosecutors in our state should be permitted to evaluate each case based on law and the facts and then proceed as they deem appropriate,' McMaster wrote. The bill 'would universally strip prosecutors of the ability' to determine whether a case warrants dismissal or prosecution. Besides that, he wrote, it was a crime when they were charged. 'Their alleged actions were, in fact, unlawful,' he wrote. 'To be sure, those actions might not be illegal today, but that distinction misses the critical point that such actions were illegal at the time they were committed.' The question is whether the House will vote this time to override the governor's veto. Last year, the Senate voted unanimously to override the governor's veto, but it takes a supermajority vote in both chambers for a bill to become law despite a veto. And the House never took it up. So, the bill died. Last week, the Senate again voted unanimously to overrule the latest veto. The House never brought it up during the Legislature's one-day special session to adopt the budget. But this time, an override is still possible next year. House Judiciary Chairman Weston Newton said the chamber will likely take a vote when they return in January. The chamber's unanimous approval of the bill May 8 suggests an override won't be a problem, he said. 'It's dismissing charges that are no longer illegal for the purposes of consistency,' said the Bluffton Republican. Following passage in March 2024 of the law allowing any adult who can legally buy a handgun to carry it with or without a concealed carry permit, some solicitors dismissed older charges of unlawful possession on their own. But it wasn't automatic. Some solicitors didn't. As of February, 206 people in 11 of South Carolina's 16 judicial districts had charges pending for that crime alone, according to Lisa Catalanotto, the executive director for the state Commission on Prosecution Coordination. She didn't have numbers from the other five judicial districts. More cases have been dropped since she last collected the numbers in February, said Catalanotto, who didn't yet have an update. But a decline isn't good enough. No one should face conviction for something that's no longer a crime, said Sen. Deon Tedder, who was again the chief sponsor. This time, three Republicans joined him in co-sponsoring the legislation. 'We had to act as a Legislature. It's simply not fair,' said Tedder, D-Charleston. He voted against the bill that legalized carrying a handgun without a permit, which supporters dubbed 'constitutional carry.' But anyone charged with a crime the Legislature has determined is unconstitutional certainly shouldn't be convicted now, Tedder said. 'This fixes something that we missed,' he said. During legislative hearings, opponents of the bill argued some people charged with the crime were known violent offenders, and unlawful carry was just the crime they could be arrested for at the time to build a case. Catalanotto, with the prosecution commission, gave the example of a person who went to a former workplace with a gun, intending to shoot someone, but was chased away at the door. An officer arrested the person for unlawfully carrying a weapon with the intent to add additional charges later, she said. But Tedder pointed to a sentence in the law specifying that an 'immediate dismissal' isn't mandated if the charge was made 'in conjunction with any other criminal offense arising out of the same facts and circumstances. The bill also specifies that a dismissed charge can't be the basis of an unlawful arrest lawsuit — another concern of law enforcement that McMaster said in his veto letter he appreciated legislators addressing. 'We tightened this bill to do what it's supposed to do,' he said.
