Justice Byron R. White, who has often been hostile to the media, wrote with a unanimous opinion that a controlled and impartial press is better than an alternative to government control.
“Of course, the press is not always accurate or even accountable, and cannot present a complete and fair debate about important public matters,” he wrote. “But in the case of the press, the first amendment is to strike a balance. Society must take the risk that sometimes the debate on important issues will not spread and not all views will be expressed.”
Less than two weeks ago, Tallahassee Federal District Court Judge Robert L. Another Florida lawIt was enacted in May and animated by the same ideas rejected by the Supreme Court in 1974. The law would impose fines on some social media platforms for refusing to appease their politicians for enforcing editorial judgments.
Inside A statement Republican Gov. Ron de Santis said he issued the bill at the time of signing, promising a conservative approach to the core of the law. “Big tech sensors will now be held accountable if they enforce the rule inconsistently for discriminatory behavior in favor of the influential Silicon Valley norm,” he said.
Judge Hinkel Turnillo cited the decision but wrote that there are significant differences between newspapers and platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
“Newspapers, unlike social media providers, create or select all of their content, including options and correspondence from the editor,” he wrote. On the contrary, he writes, “99 percent of the content that has turned out to be a good social media site can never be reviewed again.”
Judge Hinkle, however, wrote that the purpose of the new law was “ideologically sensitive lawsuits” in which platforms were used with the same discretion as newspapers.