What would be the sequence of events necessary in order for social media websites to be considered common carriers?
<p>There has been a lot of cries for social media platforms to be regulated as common carriers.
However, what would be the actual, concrete events that must happen for such a thing to happen?</p>
<p>Does it require an explicit act of congress, for social media platforms to be regulated as common carriers?</p>
<p>Can someone who has been extensively deplatformed, eg. Trump, Alex Jones or Laura Loomer, file a lawsuit arguing that social media platforms are important enough such that they must be regulated as common carriers. And then the Supreme court basically legislates from the bench a la Obergefell?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>However, what would be the actual, concrete events that must happen for [common carrier classification] to happen?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Congress would have to pass such laws, since social media platforms are currently covered by a different set of rules. In particular, the Telecommunication Act's concept of “information services” is a far better fit for social media websites than the “common carrier” concept. If the FCC were to unilaterally reclassify social media platforms as common carriers, that would be a difficult to defend position. It is also likely that other laws that require some content filtering would need to be updated or removed.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Can someone who has been extensively deplatformed […] file a lawsuit arguing that social media platforms are important enough such that they must be regulated as common carriers. And then the Supreme court basically legislates from the bench a la Obergefell?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Congress has already provided rules for the regulation of social media platforms. A lawsuit would have to show that these laws are unconstitutional. The existing rules on social media regulation will not be unconstitutional merely because of the scale and importance of those platforms. A free speech argument will not automatically work, (a) because the deplatformed person's free speech rights must be weighed against the platform's free speech rights, and (b) because the first amendment is a defensive right against the government, not against private entities such as a social media platform. Quite specifically, the amendment only says that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”, but it does not prevent private entities from making rules about how their services may be used.</p>

united-states first-amendment social-media