SCOTUS Sends Social Media Laws Back to Lower Courts

Facts

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) unanimously agreed to return to the lower courts two cases involving challenges to state laws — one each in Texas and Florida — intended to limit the ability of social media companies to moderate content.¹
Both cases revolve around laws passed by legislators who believe users, especially ones with conservative views, have been censored by the social media platforms.²
The federal appeals court in Florida struck down the law as a violation of the First Amendment, but in Texas, the appeals court ruled the law was constitutional.³
It's expected that stays ordered by the federal courts on the laws in each state will remain in effect while the courts reconsider the cases.²
In her majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, that the First Amendment 'does not go on leave when social media are involved.' So the lower courts must further review the laws.⁴

Narrative A, as provided by Washington Post. Legislators must be extremely careful when it comes to passing laws that will restrict free speech. Censorship is a serious matter, but that's why the lower courts have to determine if the right to moderate content is protected under the social media platforms' First Amendment rights. It's likely much of these two laws will qualify as protected expression, but there may be some that are not protected.
Narrative B, as provided by Breitbart. These laws are still very much alive and could be reimplemented as soon as the lower courts do their analyses. There's no precedent for censorship being protected by the First Amendment, so the lower courts may wind up agreeing both laws are constitutional before they wind up before SCOTUS again.