(L-R) U.S. Supreme Court associate justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Stephen Breyer, attend a memorial ceremony for former U.S. President George H.W. Bush in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda December 03, 2018 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a First Amendment case that experts have said could have ramifications for how the nation's largest social media companies are permitted to moderate the content on their platforms. But the justices' questions during oral argument revealed a reluctance to enter into that fraught arena. This suggests the future ruling on the matter will hew narrowly to questions specific to the facts of the case, which involved not social media but public-access television channels in New York.

In particular, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Stephen Breyer, who sit on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, expressed unease with the notion that the First Amendment could apply to private companies operating private property, such as Twitter and YouTube. And the other justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, largely homed in on extremely narrow questions of fact that suggested the court was not gearing up for a large revision of its existing precedent. "Nothing about today's hearing suggested that Twitter is in danger of being found to be a state actor any time soon," said Jeffrey Robbins, a partner at Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr and a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts. That's potentially good news for the social media companies, which under the current interpretation of the First Amendment have broad discretion to remove content from their platforms or prevent people from using their services. At stake for those companies are decisions such as the removal in August of content from right-wing conspiracy theorist and provocateur Alex Jones, whom Facebook, YouTube and others accused of violating their terms of service. If Jones had been entitled to First Amendment protections against social media companies, that removal would have been legally dicey or impossible. "I think that the court sees this as a narrow case," said Paul Hughes, who represented the respondents, in an interview with CNBC following oral arguments. "I don't anticipate a broad ruling coming out of this case that would affect social media or internet companies." Regarding the primary issue being disputed in the case, which is broadly whether public-access television can constitute a public forum, it was not clear at the end of an hour of argument how the justices would rule. A decision in the matter is expected by late June. WATCH: RBG's famous cases centered around money

Suit brought by two producers

The case arose after two television producers in New York brought a suit against the Manhattan Neighborhood Network, a private company that operates public-access television channels in the borough. The producers, DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Melendez, claim that they were unlawfully suspended from airing programs on the channels after they published a video that was critical of the network. While most private companies are not subject to First Amendment liability, there are certain exceptions in cases where the private company is serving a public function or is closely intertwined with the government. Halleck and Melendez argued that MNN was effectively an agent of the government, and the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with them. While MNN is private, two members of its 13-person board are appointed by the borough president, who also awarded MNN jurisdiction over the public-access channels. The ruling from the 2nd Circuit sparked alarm among internet-rights groups and others, who worry that a Supreme Court ruling could extend the defining features of a "state actor" and by doing so potentially jeopardize the constitutional status quo among the major technology companies. In a brief filed with the top court, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an internet civil rights group, urged the justices to "rule narrowly, and with an eye toward application of its ruling in other contexts."