The one thing the Supreme Court won’t touch

In this episode of The Gray Area with Sean Illing, guest Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent at Vox, explores a striking paradox in the current U.S. Supreme Court: while the court has been aggressively activist in areas like school curricula, reproductive rights, and the dismantling of independent agencies, it has shown remarkable restraint when it comes to regulating the internet. Millhiser highlights key cases such as Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment and Twitter v. Taamneh, where the court rejected expansive liability claims against internet service providers and social media platforms, emphasizing that the justices are not experts in digital infrastructure and that holding platforms responsible for user behavior would lead to disproportionate consequences—like cutting off entire hospitals or dorms due to one person’s actions. He argues this caution stems not from a principled commitment to free speech, but from the justices’ outdated political perspectives, many of whom were appointed before social media became a central political force. The episode warns that if the court’s composition shifts under a future Trump administration, this libertarian stance could collapse, leading to political censorship and the erosion of press freedom. Millhiser also discusses looming legal battles around algorithmic addiction and age-gating for minors, suggesting that the court will eventually have to confront these issues, but for now, its hands-off approach is both a shield and a vulnerability.