.Com or .Gov: Should the First Amendment Care? A Proposed Alternative to Moody v. NetChoice, LLC's Editorial Discretion Rule

As courts reel amid the "dizzying transformation" that social media platforms have brought to the world of free speech, courts should look to the ever-present First Amendment horizon for stability. 1 As Justice Louis Brandeis recognized in his timeless Whitney v. California concurring opinion, our form of government is founded upon the "deliberative forces" inherent in a robust, speech-protective system. 2 Indeed, the "secret to happiness," Justice Brandeis thought, contemplates a system that encourages abundant discussion amongst vigorous-not "inert" 3individuals who are free to "think as [they] will and to speak as [they] think." 4 Justice Brandeis's noble, intellectually optimistic, and firmlyrooted principles offer courts a way to steady themselves in these tumultuous times of "unparalleled opportunities" and "unprecedented dangers." 5 The Supreme Court strayed from these principles in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. 6 While the Court arguably did not create any binding precedent on the issues, 7 the Court's discussion of the substantive First