The Supreme Court issued a big win for tech companies Tuesday, blocking a new Texas law that bans large social media platforms from censoring user posts for their political views.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the law, known as HB 20, in September to keep companies with more than 50 million active users, such as Twitter and Facebook, from restricting conservative viewpoints and giving blocked users the right to sue.
The court granted Tuesday’s emergency stay in a 5-4 ruling after tech industry groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association filed a petition. They argued the Texas law would violate tech companies’ First Amendment rights to control content on their platforms.
“This ruling means that private American companies will have an opportunity to be heard in court before they are forced to disseminate vile, abusive or extremist content under this Texas law,” said Matthew Schruers, president of the CCIA. “We are encouraged that this attack on First Amendment rights has been halted until a court can fully evaluate the repercussions of Texas’s ill-conceived statute.”
While the ruling was a victory for tech, Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent argued free speech belongs to the people.
“Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news,” Alito said. “At issue is a ground-breaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan also dissented, while Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayer, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett granted the stay.
The Texas law, which was blocked by a federal judge last December and then reversed, will remain blocked as the case moves through the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Republican-controlled legislatures of Michigan and Georgia have advanced similar bills, while Florida’s social media law was recently blocked and is currently under review by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Although the court granted the stay, its decision is not a ruling on the legality of HB 20. Alito argued it was too soon to form any judgments.
“It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.”
Copyright 2022 United Press International, Inc. (UPI). Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI’s prior written consent.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
Don’t get your panties all in a knot over this ruling. It was actually correct. It sends the question back to the 5th circuit, where it should have gone in the first place.
Too many cooks in the kitchen spoils the broth.
Sorry, but where in the first amendment, is there a “RIGHT to control content on platforms’??
We have no state income tax in Texas but could declare Facebook and Twitter as political entities subject to taxation for benefits to their party received, How much is a stolen election worth to be taxed? Censoring other opinions is a violation of Free speech. I don’t see anything in the Constitution about allowing any corporate entity to suppress opposite opinions or free speech which in fact I do think it does protect. Roberts protects the establishment AGAIN, and throws THE PEOPLE under the bus again. Free speech could have saved Biden from imposing his energy restrictions but no, Robert’s rules of the road comes crashes into the argument again to allow another liberal establishment demolition derby on our freedoms of speech. Just what is it about dissenting ideas that prove more workable to a Democracy that they fear? The Press is called the 4th estate. Roberts is the 4th part of that swamp that impresses only the establishment and needs to man up and get away from those Liberal women, soon to make him the 4th.
Since these are business of a supposed private nature they can do what they want pretty much. But. If they are funded by the government then they must allow equal time for opposing views no matter how hateful saying no to their stance is. Your choice in any case is to de fund them in your state. Get people to not use them no matter how much they want to participate at that companies web page. Or add an excise tax to all the ISP’s that let them into your state. Just take a chapter out of the US government getting money out of your pocket or Microsoft taking it from businesses. Good models.