The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the Lawfair Podcast,

become a material supporter of Lawfair at Patreon.com slash Lawfair. That's Patreon.com

slash Lawfair. Also check out Lawfair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, lawfare no bull, and the aftermath.

The court is trying to resolve this on like the most kind of tentative ground

possible by saying that the challengers just failed to make a solid facial challenge and nobody except I think Justice Kagan wants to get too

definitive about when a platform is an editor and who's not.

But that's really where the debate is here.

It's the Law Fair Podcast.

I'm Kevin Frazier, assistant professor at St Thomas University College of Law

and a Tarbell fellow at Law Fair.

With a Nupam Chandrander Scott Ginsburg professor of law and technology at Georgetown Law

Kyle Langvart assistant professor at the Nebraska College of Law and Alan Rosenstein

senior editor at law Fair and associate professor at Minnesota law.

So what the court here is doing is saying, yeah, there are areas in which, you know, a non-discrimination norm might be acceptable.

Maybe that's constitutional in certain areas, but not in deciding between whether to platform Donald Trump or to platform you know Hillary

Clinton or Joe Biden. Today we're talking about the Supreme Court's decision in

Moody versus Net Choice and its likely ramifications on content

moderation and continued state regulation. In Moody versus Net Choice the

Supreme Court aimed to resolve a circuit split arising from disparate treatment of state laws impacting how and when social media platforms could moderate content.

Justice Kagan authored a unanimous, kind of, we'll get into that, a unanimous opinion holding

that neither the Fifth Circuit nor the Eleventh Circuit, applied the right test, and remanding

...