The Supreme Court is interested in online speech.

Really, really interested.

But we're still waiting to see what exactly the justices are going to do in this area.

Will they uphold the robust First Amendment protections that have governed the Internet for decades?

Will they discard those protections fundamentally altering the Internet as we know it?

Maybe they'll trash just a little bit of the Internet as a treat.

The Court has been taking big cases, but it is yet to

issue any big decisions. Last term, in the net choice cases, it didn't let states take

editorial control over social media platforms. But it didn't really not let states take editorial control over social media platforms either.

To be fair, we got some very strong dicta, but a lot remains to be decided, and potentially everything remains to be fought over.

Some of the lower courts had declared the two laws in question,

Florida's SB 7072 and Texas's HB20, facially invalid. All we know for sure is that those

rulings were too broad and that the lower courts need to go back and start again.

Last term, the court also heard Murthy v. Missouri.

There were a few ways the court could have screwed that one up.

It could have basically barred the government from ever talking to social media platforms.

Alternatively, it could have made it too hard for individuals to challenge the government's

interactions with the platforms.

Actually, it just might have tripped into that latter mistake.

If so, however, you can blame Missouri, Louisiana, and their plaintiff's sidekicks for how they handled this litigation.

We will get into that.

At any rate, the court clearly tried to do as little as possible booting the suit for want of standing.

...