Argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2024. The petition granted was "limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the Solicitor General in her brief for the United States as amicus curiae." From the Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae These cases concern laws enacted by Florida and Texas to regulate major social-media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly known as Twitter).  The relevant provisions of the laws differ in some respects, but both laws (1) restrict covered platforms’ ability to engage in content moderation by removing, editing, or arranging the user-generated content presented on their websites, and (2) require covered platforms to provide individualized explanations for certain forms of content moderation.  The questions presented are: Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment. Whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment. Resources: Moody v. NetChoice, LLC docket NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton docket Institute for Free Speech NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice amicus brief Time Stamps: (00:00:00) Moody v. NetChoice, LLC Begins Henry Charles Whitaker, Counsel of Record, Florida Office of the Attorney General (00:00:55) Paul D. Clement, Counsel of Record for NetChoice, LLC  (01:43:00) Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (02:20:15) Henry Charles Whitaker Rebuttal (02:23:00) NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton BeginsPaul D. Clement, Counsel of Record for NetChoice, LLC (02:53:47) Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (03:03:37) Aaron Lloyd Nielson, Counsel of Record, Office of the Texas Attorney General (03:40:09) Paul D. Clement Rebuttal The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. Learn more on our website: www.ifs.org