The dawn of the internet brought about new forms of speech capable of reaching massive audiences. Inevitably, questions surrounding the Constitutional rights of those posting and hosting online speech have arisen. The latest examples are those of Moody v. Netchoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, which asks whether the government can nullify decisions made by private companies about which content to boost or take down.

Moody v. NetChoice challenged a Florida law that bans social media companies from removing any account run by a candidate for office or suppressing political posts. NetChoice v. Paxton challenged a Texas law that prohibits “social media platforms” from boosting or suppressing content based on what the content says.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the companies and of free speech by declaring the Texas and Florida laws in question as unconstitutional efforts to “change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana” and sending the cases back to the 5th and 11th circuit courts for additional fact-finding.

The decision agreed with NetChoice’s argument that the laws were violating First Amendment rights by taking away the editorial discretion of the websites and apps that platform speech. “Traditional publishers and editors also select and shape other parties’ expression into their own curated speech products…The principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world.”

In other words, technology has transformed our communication but not the Constitution.

While the fate of the Texas and Florida laws will unfold in the lower courts, the Supreme Court left no question as to the rights of online platforms. The decision was a searing indictment of government censorship and a victory for those who value freedom of speech, regardless of where it takes place.

Jennifer Huddleston, of the Cato Institute, explains, “the decision did not fully reach conclusions about the underlying constitutionality of the laws in Texas and Florida, the majority seemed to indicate strong skepticism that such laws would pass the appropriate degrees of legal scrutiny…the decisions to follow are not only about Big Tech, but will continue to be much more impactful to the future of free speech in general.”

In the free market, companies are incentivized to honor the First Amendment because users always have the option to take their speech elsewhere. As a result, it is up to the online companies and users, not the ideological whims of the state, to create an ethical and desirable internet experience.

Pelican Institute general counsel Sarah Harbison commented, “However imperfect the private marketplace of ideas, here was a worse proposal—the government itself deciding when speech was imbalanced, and then coercing speakers to provide more of some views or less of others.”

We applaud the Court’s decision to prioritize First Amendment rights and the free market.