A federal judge has blocked a Texas social media law that would have restricted the way companies moderate content.
Major social media platforms with more than 50 million users would not be allowed to remove users based on their political viewpoint if Texas H.B. 20 had passed. Texas residents could file a lawsuit against these companies if they thought they were wrongly banned. The law tried to hide the obvious First Amendment issues by categorizing platforms as common carriers, something a judge called bullshit.
Pitman wrote in the order that social media platforms are privately owned. The covered social media platforms are not common carriers.
Two trade groups representing major tech companies were granted a temporary injunction by the judge. The judge ruled that the law's main goal was to prevent companies from removing users based on their political viewpoints, but that editorial discretion is protected under the First Amendment.
Without editorial discretion, social media platforms could not skew their platforms in a way that the State accuses them of doing.
The law and a similar one attempted in Florida are a continuation of the political right's reaction to the banning of former President Donald Trump from major internet platforms two weeks before the end of his term. Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, signed the bill into law on September 9, claiming in a press conference that Texas was taking a stand against big tech political censorship. Abbott said that it would not be allowed in the Lone Star State.
Texas residents, digital rights activists, and major players in the tech industry objected to the law immediately. The two major trade groups representing giants like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter co-filed their lawsuit in September, saying the new law would make it harder for platforms to remove harmful content. That limitation would be a violation of the companies First Amendment Rights.
H.B. 20 would be unconstitutional if it required platforms like YouTube and Facebook to distribute pro-Nazi speech, terrorist propaganda, foreign government propaganda, and medical misinformation. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants platforms liability protection over most users generated content and gives them the freedom to broadly moderate their sites as they see fit.
A judge in Florida ruled against the state's social media law in May. Ron DeSantis approved a law that would attempt to fine social media companies $250,000 per day for banning political candidates. The judge in that case said Florida's law was too broad and amounted to burning the house to roast a pig. The exchange of ideas among private speakers didn't amount to a legitimate government interest.
The court ruling this week was bound to happen. The end of hail mary right-wing tech laws is still uncertain. There are allegations of liberal bias in tech and conservative online.
Around 90 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said last year that it was likely that social media companies would censor viewpoints they found objectionable, a 10% increase from two years prior. More than half of the Republicans and Republican learners think social media companies support liberals over conservatives. This is all, despite the fact that Big Tech is about as liberal as a healthy shake.
