[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-136625-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":73,"doc-detail-136625-en":122},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":66,"head_meta":68,"extra_data":70,"updated_unix":72},105,"en","babylon-bee-and-not-the-bee-brief-of-amici-curiae","Babylon Bee and Not the Bee - Brief of Amici Curiae","","Amici curiae The Babylon Bee and Not the Bee file a Supreme Court brief supporting the petitioners in No. 22-277 and the respondents in No. 22-555. The argument challenges the characterization of social media platforms as good-faith, neutral content hosts under Section 230, asserting selective enforcement against conservative viewpoints. It also contends that Florida and Texas permissibly regulated platforms as common carriers to promote free exchange of ideas and protect religious viewpoints from censorship.",{"@graph":14,"@context":65},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/babylon-bee-and-not-the-bee-brief-of-amici-curiae/136625/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/babylon-bee-and-not-the-bee-brief-of-amici-curiae/136625.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Seraphina","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-20","2026-08-22",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the brief’s view of Florida and Texas laws regarding social media?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It argues the laws treat social media platforms as common carriers and permissibly regulate them to promote free exchange of ideas and protect religious viewpoints from censorship.","Answer","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":67,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":69,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":71,"site_id":7},136625,1787390229,{"code":4,"msg":74,"data":75},"success",[76,80,84,88,93,98,103,106,111,114,118],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":77,"show_sort_weight":78,"slug":79},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":81,"show_sort_weight":82,"slug":83},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":89,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":94,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":99,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},30,"research-report",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":109,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":113},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":117},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":119,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":121},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":74,"data":123},{"doc_id":71,"user_id":124,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":125,"doc_module":4,"category_id":55,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":126,"file_id":127,"file_url":128,"file_type":129,"file_size":130,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":131,"language":132,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":133,"faqs":134,"seo_title":135,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":72,"read_time":136},962075114101,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/e000253a75eb197efd?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1780044092746381165","Nos. 22-277, 22-555  \nIn the Supreme Court of  the United States  \nASHLEY MOODY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, ET AL. ,  \nPetitioners,  \nv.  \nNETCHOICE LLC, ET AL.,  \n  Respondents.  \nNETCHOICE LLC, ET AL.,  \nPetitioners,  \nv.  \nKEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS,  \nRespondent.  \nON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH AND ELEVENTH CIRCUITS  \nBRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE BABYLON BEE AND NOT THE BEE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS IN NO. 22-277 AND RESPONDENTS IN NO. 22-555  \nKelly J. Shackelford Jeffrey C. Mateer David J. Hacker Jeremiah G. Dys Camile P. Varone  \nFIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE 2001 West Plano Parkway Suite 1600  \nPlano, TX 75075  \n(972) 941-4444  \nJanuary 23, 2024  \nPatrick Strawbridge Counsel of Record Tiffany H. Bates  \nANTONIN SCALIA LAW SCHOOL  \nSUPREME COURT CLINIC CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22209  \n(703) 243-9423  \nCounsel for Amici Curiae  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii  \nINTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................1  \nINTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT................................................................3  \nARGUMENT................................................................4  \nI. Social media platforms are not the goodfaith, neutral content hosts that Section 230  \nenvisioned............................................................4  \nA. Platforms selectively apply their standards to censor conservative viewpoints ...................................................4  \nB. This bad-faith conduct does not qualify for civil immunity .....................................12  \nII. Social media platforms act as common carriers of communications, and Florida and Texas permissibly regulated them as such......14  \nIII. The Florida and Texas laws promote the free exchange of ideas and protect religious viewpoints from censorship ..............................20  \nCONCLUSION ..........................................................25  \nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES  \nCases  \nAbrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) ................................................ 25  \nBiden v. Knight First Amend., 141 S. Ct. 1220 (2021) ................................ 15, 16 , 19  \nChristian Legal Soc ’y Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of L. v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010) ................................................ 18  \nDobbs v. Jackson Women ’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022) ................................................ 22  \nKennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507 (2022) ................................................ 20  \nMiami Herald Publ ’g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) ................................................ 16  \nObergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) ................................................ 21  \nPackingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) ........................................ 2 , 17, 20  \nR.A.V. v. City of St. Paul,  \n505 U.S. 377 (1992) .................................................. 7  \nTurner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) ................................................ 21  \nUnited States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) ................................................ 15  \nStatutes and Legislative Materials  \n47 U.S.C. §230 ................................................. 3, 14, 19  \n47 U.S.C. §230(a)(2) ..................................................... 4  \n47 U.S.C. §230(a)(3) ............................................... 4, 25  \n47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1) ..................................................... 4  \n47 U.S.C. §230(c)(2)(A) .................................... 5, 12, 13  \nFlorida S.B. 7072 ............................. 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 17  \nTexas H.B. 20................................... 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 17  \nOther Authorities  \n@SethDillion, Twitter (Mar. 20, 2022, 5:52 PM), [perma.cc/7M3L-XJGZ ............................................10](perma.cc/7M3L-XJGZ ..................","cbCaiukDxaF8xWFh","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiukDxaF8xWFh","pdf",352919,35,"English","# Interest of Amici Curiae\n# Introduction and Summary of the Argument\n# Argument\n## Social media platforms as non-neutral hosts under Section 230\n## Social media platforms as common carriers\n## Florida and Texas laws and protection of free exchange of ideas","[{\"question\":\"What is the brief’s view of Florida and Texas laws regarding social media?\",\"answer\":\"It argues the laws treat social media platforms as common carriers and permissibly regulate them to promote free exchange of ideas and protect religious viewpoints from censorship.\"}]","Babylon Bee and Not the Bee - Brief of Amici Curiae | PDF",88]