Supreme Court blocks Texas social media moderation ban

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

A Texas law that would have banned moderation on social media is on hold again. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong when it said that the law banning demonetizing or downranking Texas users was unconstitutional. The law was blocked by a lower court before it was unblocked by the Fifth Circuit.

NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association petitioned the Supreme Court for a ruling after a Fifth Circuit ruling. Justice Samuel Alito referred the request to the rest of the court. Alito was in the minority when it came to vacating the ruling. The decision was supported by Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Amy ConeyBarrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, as well as Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Elena Kagan.

The case is important because it addresses the power of dominant social in Texas.

NetChoice counsel Chris Marchese was happy with the decision.

Following the Supreme Court's decision over the stay, the lawsuit over House Bill 20 will continue in a lower court, leading to a final decision about whether to overturn it. The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the law after a hearing where judges appeared to dismiss concerns about the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The law was defended by the Texas Attorney General. Large social media platforms that have more than 50 million monthly active users should be required to treat all content neutrally, because they would not be harmed by the rule taking effect as a lawsuit.

NetChoice and the CCIA argued that the legislation would make moderation decisions difficult. A lower court judge blocked the law late last year, saying moderation would benefit users and the public. The block was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

After a recent comment from its author, Texas House of Representatives lawmaker Briscoe Cain's practical implications are confusing. The mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, didn't stop site operators from removing violent content like a video of the attack. Section 230 protects any content that is legal but not objectionable, and it also implies that the law would be meaningless. There is a provision forbidding sites from banning Texas-based users.

Several organizations and policy experts weighed in on its legality, mostly in favor of NetChoice. The state of Florida was one of the Texas supporters. The bill's opponents included groups with different missions, including the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute and TechFreedom. Chris Cox, who co-authored Section 230 as a Republican congressional representative, also filed in support of NetChoice.

Tech companies have been almost completely silent on the law. The Fifth Circuit's decision made no comment on the plans of the companies. The Match Group, which operates the dating app Tinder, and the automattic company, which owns the website Tumblr, were among the companies whose services would likely be affected. They did not reply to the request for comment. No legal complaints have been filed against them.