New: First Amendment Battles over-Anti-Deplatforming Statutes: Examining Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo\u27s Relevance for Today\u27s Online Social Media Platform Cases

Florida adopted a statute in 2021 barring large social media sites from deplatforming-removing from their sites-candidates running for state and local office. Soon thereafter, Texas adopted its own anti-deplatforming statute. A trade association representing several major social media companies is now challenging the laws in federal court for violating the platforms\u27 First Amendment speech rights. A central issue in both NetChoice, LLC v. Moody (targeting Florida\u27s statute) and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton (attacking Texas\u27s law) is the significance of the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s 1974 decision in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo. In Tornillo, the Court struck down a Florida statute that compelled print newspapers that published attacks on political candidates\u27 character or record to provide access in their pages for those political candidates\u27 replies. This Article examines the relevance of Tornillo\u27s aging precedent in conferring print newspapers with a right of editorial autonomy and a right not to be compelled to speak in today\u27s social media, anti-deplatforming cases. The Article avers that while Tornillo may help the platforms with their legal challenges, its impact is cabined by several crucial factual and legal distinctions. The Article concludes that dicta regarding both access and social media platforms in the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s 2017 decision in Packingham v. North Carolina could play a surprising role in pushing back against Tornillo