Page history

BeforeFlorida Senate Bill 7072 was among the first state laws attempting to regulate how social media platforms moderate content, with specific protections for political candidates and journalistic enterprises.

AfterFlorida Senate Bill 7072 was among the first state laws to regulate how social media platforms moderate content, with specific provisions covering political candidates and journalistic enterprises.

BeforeThe law attempted to: - Prohibit platforms from deplatforming political candidates - Impose fines up to $250,000 per day for deplatforming statewide candidates and $25,000 per day for other candidates - Require detailed explanations for content moderation actions - Protect "journalistic enterprises" from certain moderation - Mandate transparency in content moderation standards

AfterThe law's provisions included requirements to: - Prohibit platforms from deplatforming political candidates - Impose fines up to $250,000 per day for deplatforming statewide candidates and $25,000 per day for other candidates - Require detailed explanations for content moderation actions - Protect "journalistic enterprises" from certain moderation - Mandate transparency in content moderation standards

Before- **District Court**: Blocked most provisions as violating First Amendment - **11th Circuit**: Largely upheld injunction, finding law unconstitutional - **Circuit Split**: Conflicted with 5th Circuit ruling on Texas HB 20 - **Supreme Court**: In Moody v. NetChoice (July 2024), the Court vacated and remanded, holding that the lower courts had not adequately analyzed the laws' full range of applications under the First Amendment

After- **District Court**: Preliminarily enjoined most provisions in June 2021 as likely violating the First Amendment - **11th Circuit**: In May 2022, affirmed the preliminary injunction as to the content-moderation restrictions and the individualized-explanation requirement, and vacated and remanded it as to certain other disclosure provisions - **Circuit Split**: The 5th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion on Texas HB 20, producing a conflict between the circuits. Both judgments were later vacated, so neither now stands as binding precedent. - **Supreme Court**: In Moody v. NetChoice (July …

BeforeThe law attempted to: - Prohibit platforms from deplatforming political candidates - Impose fines up to $250,000 per day for violations - Require detailed explanations for content moderation actions - Protect "journalistic enterprises" from certain moderation - Mandate transparency in content moderation standards

AfterThe law attempted to: - Prohibit platforms from deplatforming political candidates - Impose fines up to $250,000 per day for deplatforming statewide candidates and $25,000 per day for other candidates - Require detailed explanations for content moderation actions - Protect "journalistic enterprises" from certain moderation - Mandate transparency in content moderation standards

Before- **District Court**: Blocked most provisions as violating First Amendment - **11th Circuit**: Largely upheld injunction, finding law unconstitutional - **Circuit Split**: Conflicts with 5th Circuit ruling on Texas HB 20 - **Supreme Court**: Reviewing alongside Texas law

After- **District Court**: Blocked most provisions as violating First Amendment - **11th Circuit**: Largely upheld injunction, finding law unconstitutional - **Circuit Split**: Conflicted with 5th Circuit ruling on Texas HB 20 - **Supreme Court**: In Moody v. NetChoice (July 2024), the Court vacated and remanded, holding that the lower courts had not adequately analyzed the laws' full range of applications under the First Amendment

Before- Response to deplatforming of political figures - Part of broader state efforts to regulate tech platforms - Reflects debates over platform power and accountability - Tests limits of state authority over online speech

After- Response to deplatforming of political figures - Part of broader state efforts to regulate tech platforms - Reflects debates over platform power and content moderation - Tests limits of state authority over online speech