US jurisprudence post-New Deal is split into distinct liberal and conservative lineages. Given that the Constitution, the country's founding legal charter, is fundamentally liberal, and given also that conservatism is fundamentally relative, and given third that Supreme Court justices are inherently political in serving the policy interests of certain parties, peoples, etc., neither lineage is purely "liberal" (let's use "libertarian" for clarity, as that's the term used to describe William Douglas, the most ideologically pure liberal jurist in terms of civil liberties). And, of course given the political nature of Supreme Court appointments, a purely libertarian jurist would never have been historically practicable (can you imagine a 1815 Justice advocating forcing states to dissolve slavery, grant universal suffrage, and recognize SSM?) or acceptable to voters and representatives. And that's without touching the fact that a purely libertarian judicial philosophy wouldn't be workable in the first place since economic and social freedoms necessarily overlap.
Returning to post-New Deal jurisprudence, the liberal Court has favored positive freedoms (like meaningful access to political discourse for average voters) at the expense of the "speech" rights of capital, particularly the speech rights of nonhuman entities (corporations). So, although the liberal Court is much more libertarian than the conservative Court in terms of the speech rights of individuals (flag burning, anti-war demonstrations, proselytizing, pornography, obscenity, labor organizing, pro-communist speech, etc.) it has been less deferential to the speech rights of capital than the conservative Court, which has been more concerned with the rights of corporations' commercial speech and political speech in the way of political donations. So the liberal Court would be more inclined to infringe on the corporate speech rights of Facebook/Twitter in the interests of the government, just as it would be more inclined to infringe on the political donations of the wealthy in favor of the government's interest in combatting corruption or ensuring the effective speech rights of the non-wealthy. The conservative Court would be more inclined to allow Facebook/Twitter to infringe on individual speech rights in the name of their commercial speech prerogative and would be more likely to limit the government's interest in anti-corruption/effective access in favor of preserving the uninterrupted rights of the wealthy to donate to politicians.
Basically, it's a similar dynamic to the two parties today. The conservative Court, like the Republicans, is prone to being laissez faire in economic matters but support broad government intervention in social matters. Meanwhile, the liberal Court, like the Democrats, is prone to allowing economic intervention but preserving civil liberties, negative (the above types) and positive.
