It is a remarkable time in the law of internet speech.

Of course, a litigant for the Supreme Court recently wrote, the First Amendment

applies with full force to websites. That litigant cited the seminal case of Reno versus

ACLU, 1997 Supreme Court decision. Series of upcoming cases will put that proposition to the test.

Last December, the court heard oral argument in 303 Creative versus Alainis.

The issue there is whether a website designer can be compelled to speak a message with which

she disagrees in the form of being forced to design a website for a gay wedding.

Pending before the court are cert petitions in Moody v. Netchoice and NetChoice versus

Paxton. At issue in those petitions are Florida and Texas's

social media speech codes. Those are SB 7072 and HB20 respectively. The issue is whether a

state can force a large private social media platform to disseminate messages

that it believes are dangerous or harmful or abhorrent. Or, on the contrary, do those large

social media platforms have a right to editorial discretion over the speech they disseminate?

We could be waiting a bit for the court to decide whether to review those

because the justices have called for the views of the Solicitor General. I don't think the

Solicitor General is going to issue a brief until after the court has decided Gonzalez versus Google,

more on that one in just a moment.

But there's no doubt, I'd say.

You never say never, but it is almost certain that the court will take those two cases,

or at least one of them, and that that will be on the docket next term.

Yes, Gonzalez versus Google, subject of a recent episode of the show.

The basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, Justice Scalia once wrote for the court,

...