Texas’s HB20 was put on hold by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, five-to-four. As is typical for emergency requests, the majority did not define their reasoning; Judge Alito co-wrote a six-page dissent with fellow conservatives Gorsuch and Thomas, while Kagan, a moderate, wrote that she would “deny the application to leave the residence” without joining the dissent.
The bill — which has been tied up in court since it was passed by state congress and signed by Governor Greg Abbott last September — targets “censorship” by online platforms, to the extent that conservatives have been used to any form in recent years. confusing content moderation with censorship. It reframes major social platforms as “common carriers” similar to telecom companies, but uses that logic to limit the ability of platforms to restrict, ban, or demonize the distribution of content based on “the user’s point of view”, regardless or that opinion is expressed on the platform.
Unsurprisingly, the content, users, and points of view that the law’s supporters say are unfairly targeted are being directed to the right: As the Texas Tribune reported last year, Governor Abbott said he believed social platforms worked to “bring conservative ideas forward.” silence.” [and] religious beliefs.” The torment of the interested parties and their desired results were not lost on West Texas District Court Judge Robert Pitman, who wrote that “the record in this case confirms that the legislature intended to target major social media platforms.” who are seen as biased against conservative views.”
An urgent request to the Supreme Court to suspend HB20 was filed earlier this month by two tech industry groups — NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) — after a Fifth Circuit court lifted a ban on the law. surprising 2-1 decision for which no explanation was given. Netchoice’s members include Airbnb, TikTok, Amazon, and Lyft; Apple, Google, eBay, Meta and others count themselves among those associated with CCIA. NetChoice’s attorney at the time told Protocol that the Texas law was “unconstitutional” and would “force online platforms to host and promote foreign propaganda, pornography, pro-Nazi statements and spam.”
The same concerns took on new urgency after the shooting in Buffalo, New York, in which a gunman with white supremacist beliefs killed 10 people and injured three others in a predominantly black neighborhood while live-streaming the massacre. Social media companies tried to remove copies of the images from their services. Even when they did, the question remained uncertain as to whether those takedowns would lead to Texas taking these platforms to court. Confusion over the law’s application wasn’t limited to interested observers either: In a Twitter exchange with Techdirt’s Mike Masnick, the bill’s sponsor seemed unsure about how such situations would pan out.
A related Florida law, which takes a similar common carrier approach, was ruled unconstitutional by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month. The issue of constitutionality for HB20 will continue in the Fifth Circuit Court.
All products recommended by Engadget have been selected by our editorial team, independent of our parent company. Some of our stories contain affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, we may earn an affiliate commission.