> Particularly eye-opening was https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/292540/2023 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/292540/2023... - an

> Particularly eye-opening was https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/292540/2023 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/292540/2023... - an amicus brief from the moderators of the subreddits r/law and r/SCOTUS They write: > Under the challenged laws, removal of such a scintillating contribution to legal discourse would require amici to provide HateSpeechLuvr with an individualized explanation for the removal, and expose amici to the risk of legal action by the state, or, more dangerously, private actors (like Mr. Luvr). Do the challenged laws actually apply to Reddit moderators, as opposed to Reddit the corporation? I don't think on a plain reading they actually do. Both the Florida and Texas laws apply to actions by "social media platforms". Reddit itself is a "social media platform", but I don't think an individual volunteer Reddit moderator is – so I don't think this law would apply directly to them. In any event, were SCOTUS to uphold these laws, they could make clear the scope of their application in upholding them, such that private individuals such as volunteer Reddit moderators were clearly excluded from it. And the "scintillating contribution" it is talking about is a single sentence with no meaningful content, just an extremely defamatory insult which includes the n-word. Even if SCOTUS upholds these laws, I doubt any attempt to challenge the moderation of that specific contribution is going to succeed in the courts.