Judge Says Texas’ Bill to Stop Social Media From Curbing Hate Speech Will 'Cultivate Ideas'

censorship is the word of the day and the concept of moderation is a foreign concept in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal.

The court rejected the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say and gave Texans the green light to file lawsuits against social media companies that remove posts about vaccines. This is an interesting interpretation of what online moderation actually is.

H.B. 20 was signed into law by Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Tech companies argued that the bill would limit their ability to remove dangerous content. The law was shot down by a federal court after objections from tech companies.

It's usually the end of the laws attacking big tech if they are out of whack. H.B. 20 was the only one who wouldn't die. The hold on the law was overruled by the 5th circuit court of appeals. The US Supreme Court put a hold on the law and sent it back to the lower courts.

The idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say was rejected by the judges who wrote the 100 page decision. H.B. 20's prohibitions on censorship will cultivate rather than stifle the marketplace of ideas.

The MagSafe charging case will allow for up to 6 hours of listening time with ANC enabled and 30 hours of total listening time.

Editorial discretion is a First Amendment issue. Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and co-director of the school's High Tech Law Institute, said that this decision is less of a judicial decision and more of a repetition of right-wing talking points.

NetChoice, one of the industry-backed groups arguing against the bill, had sued Texas over its bill and had previously applauded the SCOTUS decision to block it. Carl Szabo, the vice president and general counsel of NetChoice wrote that they remain convinced that the First Amendment will be upheld when the Supreme Court hears one of their cases.

What Does the 5th Circuit Not Understand About Tech Policy?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act states that internet hosts are not responsible for third party content posted on their site. Social media companies need to accept legal responsibility for the content it edits, while lumping in traditional news outlets, according to the 5th Circuit decision. What makes the decision even more confusing is that it only considers the removal of limited categories of content. It doesn't say anything about viewpoint or geography-based censorship. There's little hope for any factual discussion online if you think moderation of harmful conspiracy theories is "viewpoint-based censorship"

Goldman said the decision relied on partisan beliefs in Congress to misinterpret section 230. He referred to it as a Breitbart style discussion.

It is ill-informed and nave about the state of internet speech and what is happening on social media. The judges seem to say that platforms have an obsession with terrorists in order to justify their moderation practices. They don't want tospeculate about 'hypothetical' and 'imaginary' cases If you had to go so far to find examples of recognized anti-government groups and recognized terrorists who have tried to spread their own brands of hate and violence across the biggest social media platforms, you wouldn't know it.

There is a misunderstanding of what happens with online content moderation throughout the decision document. The postal service has used automated screening to filter out hazardous materials and overweight packages, and then organized and affixed a logo to the mail before delivery, according to the judges. The line uses a backwards metaphor to describe user-created content put up for public consumption on a privately-owned platform.

It is all a bigger screen for what the 5th circuit is arguing, leaving little room for questions.

“It is undisputed that the platforms want to eliminate speech—not promote or protect it. And no amount of doctrinal gymnastics can turn the First Amendment’s protections for free speech into protections for free censoring.”

The legal community is debating if this will change how social media companies operate. The policy counsel at TechFreedom wrote in a lengthy thread that it could depend on the interpretation of the 1985 case Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Barthold said that the decision has implications outside of just social media. He refers to a case in which equal space in newspapers was struck down. The TechFreedom counsel said that the decision constituted the exercise of editorial control and judgment which everyone has known for a long time. There is no such right according to the majority opinion.

The bill that was passed in Florida was rejected by the 11th circuit court of appeals. Goldman said the Supreme Court is going to hear more arguments about whether social media companies should be allowed to moderate content on their own sites, and this decision by the 5th circuit could put more onus on the highest court in the U.S.

There isn't likely to be an end to the state of online speech without a decision from the top of the judicial branch.

Dell CAMERON REPORTS.