Nos. 22-277 & 22-555 In The Supreme Court of the United States ________________

I hereby certify on this 23rd day of January, 2024, that excluding those parts allowed by rule, the above referenced BRIEF OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF TEXAS AND FLORIDA contains 6,838 words.

Now that the internet has assumed this role as “the primary global platform to exchange ideas,” freedom of expression online is essential to “both democracy and innovation.” Adam Candeub, Bargaining for Free Speech: Common Carriage, Network Neutrality, and Section 230, 22 Yale J. L. & Tech. 391, 393 (2020).

The internet, particularly through social media, has become the principal source of information about current events, employment ads, debating matters of public concern, “and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.” Packingham, 137 S. Ct. at 1737.

Yet the Platforms “attempt to extract a freewheeling censorship right” from the Free Speech Clause (Paxton, 49 F.4th at 494 (emphasis added)), an “unenumerated right to muzzle speech” that also has “staggering” implications for customers of “email providers, mobile phone company, and bank” (id. at 445).

As the Fifth Circuit observed, common carrier doctrine dates “back long before our Founding,” vesting states with “the power to impose nondiscrimination obligations on communication and transportation providers that hold themselves out to serve all members of the public without individualized bargaining.” Paxton, 49 F.4th at 469.

The Platforms are huge entities, broadly open to the public, that should be regarded as common carriers, subject to the same regulations as other communication industries, as a condition for receiving immunity from certain type of lawsuits.

Respondents have consented to this motion and agreed to cede ten minutes of their argument time to the United States.

The United States has a substan- tial interest in the proper interpretation and application of the relevant First Amendment principles.

At the invitation of the Court, the United States filed a brief as amicus curiae at the petition stage in this case and NetChoice v. Paxton.

The United States has previously presented oral argument as a party or amicus in cases involving the proper application of the relevant First Amendment principles.

The United States has also presented oral argument in other recent cases involving the ap- plication of the First Amendment to speech posted on social-media platforms.

Attorney General of Texas, Respondent.

I, Renee Goss, of lawful age, being duly sworn, upon my oath state that I did, on the 22nd day of January, 2024, send out from Omaha, NE 5 package(s) containing 3 copies of the AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS IN 22-277 AND RESPONDENT IN 22-555 in the above entitled case.

Packages were plainly addressed to the following:

I am duly authorized under the laws of the State of Nebraska to administer oaths.

Notary Public Affiant 44772

As this Court has recognized, “[s]ocial media ... are [among] the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98, 107 (2017).

The social media platforms have cen- sored and blocked scientists from presenting evidence that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese laboratory, journalists from reporting on the risks and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines, medical doctors from discuss- ing the medical benefits of hydroxychloroquine, pas- tors from presenting online church services, climate scientists from making the scientific case against an asserted climate crisis, media outlets from sharing their reporting about well-documented scandals in- volving Hunter and Joe Biden, and everyday Ameri- cans from sharing their own views or forwarding the views of others to their friends, family, and acquaint- ances.

Whenever I was solicited to insert anything of that kind, and the writers pleaded, as they generally did, the liberty of the press, and that a newspaper was like a stage-coach, in which anyone who would pay had a right to a place, my answer was, that I would print the piece separately if desired, and the author might have as many copies as he pleased to distrib- ute himself.

Further, Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which preempts state laws, explicitly allows social media platforms to censor sexual obscenity, excessive vio- lence, and other objectionable material.

As EU bu- reaucracies exercise state power to censor disfavored speech, NetChoice asks this Court to consign the American people to permanent bystander status as others get to shape the regulatory environment for “the modern public square.” Packingham, 582 U.S. at 107.

None of NetChoices’ many amici examine this problem in much detail.

None of these three cases address any of the distinctive circumstances applicable in this context.

But at the same time, none of the abu- sive practices of the SMPs are present here.

Briefs and Records Supreme Court of the United States United States Courts of Appeals

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33. l(h), I certify that the Brief of Amicus Curiae Keep the Republic in Support of Petitioners in No. 22-277 & Respondent in No. 22-555 contains 7,903 words, excluding the parts of the Brief that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.l(d).

(800) 890.5001 www.beckergallagher.com 8790 Governor's Hill Drive Suite 102 Cincinnati, Ohio 45249 Franklin Square 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 400E Washington, DC 20005

State of Ohio County of Hamilton I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

N( !ci ry r':-blic, State of Ohio ivly Commission Expires February 14, 2028