Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 30

24 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

Opinion of the Court 

operators, and parade organizers this Court has previously 
considered,  the  major  social-media  platforms  are  in  the
business,  when  curating  their  feeds,  of  combining  “multi-
farious  voices”  to  create  a  distinctive  expressive  offering. 
Hurley,  515  U. S.,  at  569.    The  individual  messages  may 
originate  with  third  parties,  but  the  larger  offering  is  the 
platform’s.  It  is  the  product  of  a  wealth  of  choices  about 
whether—and, if so, how—to convey posts having a certain 
content or viewpoint.  Those choices rest on a set of beliefs 
about  which  messages  are  appropriate  and  which  are  not 
(or which are more appropriate and which less so).  And in 
the  aggregate  they  give  the  feed  a  particular  expressive
quality.  Consider  again  an  opinion  page  editor,  as  in 
Tornillo, who wants to publish a variety of views, but thinks
some things off-limits (or, to change the facts, worth only a 
couple of column inches).  “The choice of material,” the “de-
cisions  made  [as  to]  content,”  the  “treatment  of  public  is-
sues”—“whether  fair  or  unfair”—all  these  “constitute  the 
exercise  of  editorial  control  and  judgment.”    Tornillo,  418 
U. S., at 258.  For a paper, and for a platform too.  And the 
Texas law (like Florida’s earlier right-of-reply statute) tar-
gets those expressive choices—in particular, by forcing the
major  platforms  to  present  and  promote  content  on  their 
feeds that they regard as objectionable.

That  those  platforms  happily  convey  the  lion’s  share  of 
posts submitted to them makes no significant First Amend-
ment  difference.  Contra,  49  F. 4th,  at  459–461  (arguing 
otherwise).  To begin with, Facebook and YouTube exclude
(not to mention, label or demote) lots of content from their
News Feed and homepage.  The Community Standards and 
Community Guidelines set out in copious detail the varied
kinds of speech the platforms want no truck with.  And both 
platforms appear to put those manuals to work.  In a single
quarter  of  2021,  Facebook  removed  from  its  News  Feed 
more  than  25  million  pieces  of  “hate  speech  content”  and