Justice Byron R. White, who has always been opposed to the news media, wrote in an inconsistent opinion that an uncontrolled and uncontrolled press is better than a government control option.

“Of course, the press is not always accurate, or accountable, and will not be able to present a full and fair discussion on important public issues,” he wrote. “But the balance struck by the First Amendment in the context of the press is that society must take the risk that sometimes important issues are not widely discussed and not all views are expressed.”

Less than two weeks ago, Tallahassee Federal District Court Judge Robert L. Hinkle blocked another Florida law, this one enacted in May, and was animated by some similar ideas rejected by the Supreme Court in 1974. The law will impose penalties on some social media platforms for using editorial rulings to promote the views of political politicians.

In a statement issued when he signed the bill, the government. Republican Ron Descentis said the issue of legislation was to promote a more conservative approach. “They will now be held accountable if Big Tech censors apply rules inconsistently to discriminate in favor of the influential Silicon Valley ideology.”

Judge Hinkle cited Ranillo’s decision but wrote that there was a significant difference between newspapers and platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

“Unlike social media providers, newspapers, create or select all their content, including op-ed and letters to the editor,” he wrote. On the contrary, he wrote, “99 percent of the content is something north of what makes it on the social media site is never further reviewed.”

But Judge Hinkle wrote that the new law was to deal with “ideologically sensitive cases” in which platforms used discretion, like newspapers.