Uploaded March 2024 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Episode #73
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, cases challenging Florida and Texas state laws barring major social media firms from using most types of content moderation, thereby requiring them to host content they disapprove of. The oral arguments suggest a clear majority of the justices believe these laws violate the First Amendment rights of social media providers. They seemed especially skeptical of the government’s desire to force traditional social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to change their moderation practices and disseminate speech they want to exclude.
Today we will be taking a deep dive into the oral arguments that the court heard earlier this week. I’ve pulled together a comprehensive picture of the four hours of oral arguments. As always, I present the most important information and the key moments during the trial that you need to understand this case— and it is presented in a way that is equally useful for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
I conclude with a summary of the possible outcomes as well as my professional opinion of the most likely outcome in a case that, regardless how it’s decided, will be a landmark in first amendment jurisprudence.
Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-netchoice-cases-everything
Follow & Support
Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.com
Legalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com
“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX
Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com
Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Episode #73
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, cases challenging Florida and Texas state laws barring major social media firms from using most types of content moderation, thereby requiring them to host content they disapprove of. The oral arguments suggest a clear majority of the justices believe these laws violate the First Amendment rights of social media providers. They seemed especially skeptical of the government’s desire to force traditional social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to change their moderation practices and disseminate speech they want to exclude.
Today we will be taking a deep dive into the oral arguments that the court heard earlier this week. I’ve pulled together a comprehensive picture of the four hours of oral arguments. As always, I present the most important information and the key moments during the trial that you need to understand this case— and it is presented in a way that is equally useful for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
I conclude with a summary of the possible outcomes as well as my professional opinion of the most likely outcome in a case that, regardless how it’s decided, will be a landmark in first amendment jurisprudence.
Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-netchoice-cases-everything
Follow & Support
Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.com
Legalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com
“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX
Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com
Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
