AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court Friday ruled in favor of a Texas law targeting major social media companies like Facebook and Twitter in a victory for Republicans who accuse the platforms of censoring conservative speech.
But the decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans is unlikely to be the last word in a legal battle that has stakes beyond Texas, and could impact how some of the world’s biggest tech companies regulate content by their users.
The Texas law, signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott last year, has been challenged by tech trade groups that warn that it would prevent platforms from removing extremism and hate speech. A similar law was also passed in Florida and ruled unconstitutional by a separate appeal court.
The final say is likely to come from the U.S. Supreme Court, which earlier this year blocked the Texas law while the lawsuit played out.
“Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say,” U.S. Circuit Court Judge Andrew Oldham wrote.
NetChoice, one of the groups challenging the law, expressed disappointment in a statement that pointed out the ruling was the opposite of the decision made in the lawsuit over the Florida law.
“We remain convinced that when the U.S. Supreme Court hears one of our cases, it will uphold the First Amendment rights of websites, platforms, and apps,” said Carl Szabo, NetChoice’s vice president and general counsel.
Republican elected officials in several states have backed laws like those enacted in Florida and Texas that sought to portray social media companies as generally liberal in outlook and hostile to ideas outside of that viewpoint, especially from the political right.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in May that is not clear how the high court’s past First Amendment cases, many of which predate the internet age, apply to Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and other digital platforms.
The Florida law, as enacted, would give Florida’s attorney general authority to sue companies under the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. It would also allow individual residents to sue social media companies for up to $100,000 if they feel they have been treated unfairly.
The Texas law only applies to the largest social media platforms that have more than 50,000 active users.
© 2022 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
To big tech, two questions: What is extremism? What is hate speech? From we have seen there are rather fluid definitions and usually relying on some sort of political sensibility, I was careful not to use the words Democrat, left, liberal or woke. But when the opinions of highly regarded medical institutions with impeccable credentials are silenced in favor of government pablum that is scarcely verifiable one has to wonder. I guess that falls under extremism. Is disagreeing with intrusive government regulation and meddling hate speech? It must be so. Good communication relies on the free exchange of ideas, the open debate on issues where both sides are heard and not silenced into oblivion. Only then can there be a consensus on a subject, as in th logic class I had in colllege, an idea is presented, thesis; a counter idea or ideas are offered, antithesis; all the facts are weighed and DISCUSSED (the last very important); an agreement is reached, synthesis! It’s all very simple until one side is neither willing to listen to the other side nor enter into debate and defend their position.
AND TILL that ‘hate speech/extremism laws’ ARE APPLIED EQUALLY, they shouldn’t be allowed to stand, when they ONLY ARE USED to punish one side of a political argument.
In a true free speech environment, there is no such thing as “hate speech”. What one side calls hate speech, the other calls it free expression. In fact both sides are expressing their opinions. When one side has their opinion suppressed, you do not have freedom of speech and opinion. The key to a free society is the freedom of thought, opinion and speech. These were the freedoms our founders tried to protect. The freedom to worship is one of the core freedoms. In today’s world suppressing religion is being called “separation of church and state” although it is anything but. When the state directly suppress’ religious belief, what can it be called but the state dictating religion?
As the quote goes. When you censor what someone says, you are telling the world, YOU FEAR WHAT He has to say.