Social media: A Texas battle over online censorship
The Supreme Court this week blocked a Texas law that would have tied the hands of social media companies, said Lauren Feiner in CNBC.com, setting up a future showdown over online censorship. Drafted to address criticism that tech platforms discriminate against conservatives, the law, HB 20, making it illegal for large social media platforms to block or remove posts based on their “viewpoint.” A district judge ruled HB 20 unconstitutional in December. But an appeals court overturned the ruling last month in what Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called “a big win against Big Tech.” That turned out to be premature, as five Supreme Court justices voted to block the law for now. The Supreme Court will likely be called on to make a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of the law, which “the tech industry and other opponents have warned could allow for hateful content to run rampant online.”
This is a second defeat for conservatives looking to limit the power of tech companies, said Cat Zakrzewski in The Washington Post. A panel of three judges—all appointed by Republican presidents, including one by Donald Trump—last week unanimously rejected an attempt by Florida “to bar social media companies from banning politicians,” saying that tech companies’ moderation decisions are protected. But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has argued that tech giants should act as “common carriers,” much like phone companies, and not censor content, has been eager to take a case on the issue.
If HB 20 ultimately stands, it will open the floodgates for conspiracy theories and online harassment, said Berin Szoka in The Daily Beast. “If a mass shooter posted a video explaining his motives—as the racist shooter in Buffalo did—a social media site could be sued for blocking it.” Alex Jones “spent a decade peddling the conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged to justify suppressing Americans’ gun rights.” The families of those killed in Uvalde, Texas, shouldn’t have to face the same abuse.
Foes of the law may be overstating their case here, said Adam Candeub and Rachel Bovard in Newsweek. Tech platforms are still “free to censor nudity, obscenity, harassment, and hateful conduct.” What Texas’ law requires is that “what they censor doesn’t favor one political party or ideological position.” That’s still a no-win position, said Andrew Egger in The Dispatch. Yes, the Buffalo shooter’s manifesto could probably be removed, but “an identical document stripped of its calls to violence” could still “leave platforms powerless.”