Make no mistake, the new law is an overwhelming victory for Floridians and for all who favor free speech. Immediately following the passage of this law, opponents were quick to claim that this legislation will not stand in court because it is unconstitutional.

These arguments provide quick soundbites and may sound legitimate for anyone who is not familiar with the Communications Decency Act of 1996. However, on their face, these arguments are simply untrue.

Under the Communications Decency Act (CDA), there is a provision for state-based legislation. Specifically, section (e), subsection (3), allows state legislatures to enforce respective state laws so long as they are consistent with Section 230 of the CDA. This is the case with Senate Bill 7072.

The state-based exemption component of Section 230 has practically been begging for a state to pass a law such as the one in Florida. It is evident that the issue of Big Tech censorship and content moderation is unlikely to be addressed federally. Hence, the solution lies in state-based legislation that challenges these practices. Naturally, Big Tech will counter with lawsuits. //

When this case is likely heard, the Supreme Court will be grappling with the complex question of whether these social media platforms maintain First Amendment rights as a corporation. And if so, do those rights supersede the First Amendment rights of American citizens?

This very same question was posed to lawmakers in Florida with each step regarding Senate Bill 7072. When the legislation was up for consideration in its assigned committees, and when it hit the floor of the House and the Senate, Florida lawmakers had to ask themselves the same question. Which comes first: The First Amendment rights of Twitter, Facebook, etc.? Or the First Amendment rights of their constituents?