Snap Wants to be a State Actor??–Kansas v. Snap

For decades, private Internet services have uniformly tried to avoid being legally characterized as government actors. If they become state actors, they must comply with Constitutional restrictions–meaning the Constitutionally required freedoms of speech and press would extend to their user-authors and overlay the services’ content moderation decision. That would turn every content moderation decision into litigation-bait, and few if any Internet services could handle the litigation onslaught that would follow. Thus, there has been a long-standing understanding among private Internet services: it is existentially important that they don’t do anything that would convert them into a state actor.

[Note: as discussed below, I previously missed a Florida case previews the developments in this post. It’s still worth talking now because Snap’s choices are wild.]