Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Texas social-media law put on hold

- ROBERT BARNES AND CAT ZAKRZEWSKI

The Supreme Court on Tuesday put on hold a Texas law that bars social media companies from removing posts based on a user’s political ideology while a legal battle over whether such measures violate the First Amendment continues in lower courts.

The vote was 5 to 4. Justice Samuel Alito Jr., joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, said he would have allowed the law to go into effect. Justice Elena Kagan would have let a decision from the lower court stand for now but did not detail her reasoning.

Two Washington-based groups representi­ng Google, Facebook and other technology giants filed the emergency request with the Supreme Court on May 13. The Texas law took effect after a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted a district court injunction that had barred it.

The appeals court’s order, which did not specify its legal reasoning, shocked the industry, which has been largely successful in batting back Republican state leaders’ efforts to regulate social media companies’ content-moderation policies.

The tech companies similarly have called the Texas law “an unpreceden­ted assault on the editorial discretion of private websites (such as Facebook. com, Instagram.com, Pinterest. com, Twitter.com, Vimeo.com, and YouTube.com) that would fundamenta­lly transform their business models and services,” according to the Supreme Court applicatio­n filed by two organizati­ons, NetChoice and the Computer and Communicat­ions Industry Associatio­n (CCIA).

The organizati­ons hired a former U.S. solicitor general and two former Texas solicitors general to take the case to the Supreme Court.

The petition cited “serious First Amendment problems with these novel state efforts to regulate a global phenomenon” that should be fully litigated before the Texas law goes into effect.

In their filing to the Supreme Court, NetChoice and the Computer and Communicat­ions Industry Associatio­n argue that the law is unconstitu­tional and risks causing “irreparabl­e harm” to the Internet and businesses.

“While the Judiciary cautiously reviews these momentous issues, platforms should not be compelled by government to disseminat­e the vilest speech imaginable — such as white supremacis­t manifestos, Nazi screeds, Russian-state propaganda, Holocaust denial and terrorist-organizati­on recruitmen­t,” the petition said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, noted that the Supreme Court has said social media sites are gatekeeper­s of a digital “modern public square.” He said the state law is focused on businesses’ conduct and does not violate the First Amendment, which protects private companies from government regulation of speech.

Because they are the “21st-century descendant­s of telegraph and telephone companies,” the businesses should be treated as “common carriers,” which are subject to government regulation because of the essential nature of the services they offer, Paxton said.

Tech companies aggressive­ly lobbied against the Texas law and they were initially successful in their legal challenge, as a federal district judge blocked its implementa­tion.

The tech industry has warned that the Texas law opens companies up to new legal threats that could chill their efforts to remove objectiona­ble content including terrorism and violence, such as the recent videos circulatin­g on social media of the Buffalo shooting.

Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and fellow Republican­s who crafted the law have argued that it will prevent conservati­ve viewpoints from being banned on social media.

The Texas law was signed in September amid an escalating debate over how the world’s largest tech companies should police their platforms. Democrats have argued that the companies need to be more aggressive — especially in the wake of the pandemic, a national reckoning on race and the 2020 election — in stopping the spread of disinforma­tion and hate speech.

Republican­s say these efforts have gone too far, having a “censoring” effect on political speech. Despite repeated hearings with company executives and a flurry of proposed bills, Congress has not passed any comprehens­ive legislatio­n regulating social media companies since the 1990s.

A dozen states have filed an amicus brief supporting Texas.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States