<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><feed
	xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0"
	xml:lang="en-US"
	>
	<title type="text">Supreme Court hears arguments on the future of online speech: all the news &#8211; The Verge</title>
	<subtitle type="text">The Verge is about technology and how it makes us feel. Founded in 2011, we offer our audience everything from breaking news to reviews to award-winning features and investigations, on our site, in video, and in podcasts.</subtitle>

	<updated>2024-02-27T15:26:09+00:00</updated>

	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/24080905/supreme-court-arguments-netchoice-moody-paxton-online-speech" />
	<id>https://www.theverge.com/rss/stream/23844946</id>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.theverge.com/rss/stream/23844946" />

	<icon>https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/01/verge-rss-large_80b47e.png?w=150&amp;h=150&amp;crop=1</icon>
		<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Lauren Feiner</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Why Uber and Etsy came up so much in the Supreme Court’s social media arguments]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/27/24084124/supreme-court-netchoice-moody-paxton-florida-texas-social-media-law-arguments" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/27/24084124/supreme-court-netchoice-moody-paxton-florida-texas-social-media-law-arguments</id>
			<updated>2024-02-27T10:26:09-05:00</updated>
			<published>2024-02-27T10:26:09-05:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Policy" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Politics" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Regulation" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Speech" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[During Monday's Supreme Court arguments in a pair of consequential social media cases, the justices prodded for ways they could rule without giving either side everything they asked for. The justices seemed largely skeptical of the most sweeping provisions in Florida's and Texas' social media laws, which would force certain tech platforms to carry speech [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos via Getty Images" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25301216/STK463_SCOTUS_C.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During Monday's Supreme Court arguments in <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/23/24080521/supreme-court-netchoice-florida-texas-social-media-laws-arguments">a pair of consequential social media cases</a>, the justices prodded for ways they could rule without giving either side everything they asked for.</p>
<p>The justices seemed largely skeptical of the most sweeping provisions in Florida's and Texas' social media laws, which would force certain tech platforms to carry speech even when they don't want to. But they also looked for the boundaries of tech companies' First Amendment rights - seeking to understand when they become conduits for the transfer of information, rather than expressive platforms themselves.</p>
<p>The laws at the center of the fight, Florida's SB  …</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/27/24084124/supreme-court-netchoice-moody-paxton-florida-texas-social-media-law-arguments">Read the full story at The Verge.</a></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Lauren Feiner</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[The Supreme Court is about to decide the future of online speech]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/23/24080521/supreme-court-netchoice-florida-texas-social-media-laws-arguments" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/23/24080521/supreme-court-netchoice-florida-texas-social-media-laws-arguments</id>
			<updated>2024-02-23T09:00:00-05:00</updated>
			<published>2024-02-23T09:00:00-05:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Law" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Policy" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Speech" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Social media companies have long made their own rules about the content they allow on their sites. But a pair of cases set to be argued before the Supreme Court on Monday will test the limits of that freedom, examining whether they can be legally required to host users' speech. The cases, Moody v. NetChoice [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos via Getty Images" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25301222/STK463_SCOTUS_E.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Social media companies have long made their own rules about the content they allow on their sites. But a pair of cases set to be argued before the Supreme Court on Monday will test the limits of that freedom, examining whether they can be legally required to host users' speech.</p>
<p>The cases, <em>Moody v. NetChoice</em> and <em>NetChoice v. Paxton</em>, deal with the constitutionality of laws created in Florida and Texas, respectively. Though there are some differences between the two laws, both essentially limit the ability of large online platforms to curate or ban content on their sites, seeking to fight what lawmakers claim are rules that suppress conservati …</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/23/24080521/supreme-court-netchoice-florida-texas-social-media-laws-arguments">Read the full story at The Verge.</a></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
	</feed>
