A three-judge appellate panel from the conservative 5th Circuit has opted to keep in place a controversial law that prohibits social media companies from banning content it deems harmful, reversing a lower court’s injunction that had temporarily blocked its enforcement during pending litigation.
Two trade organizations representing multiple social media and commerce platforms—including Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok—had sued Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over the law, H.B. 20, which Gov. Greg Abbott, also a Republican, signed into law in September.
The expansive law prohibits social media platforms—defined in the law as “an internet website or application that is open to the public” and allows users to create accounts and communicate with each other “for the primary purpose of posting information, comments, messages, or images”—from engaging in certain “censorship.” Specifically, the law states:
CENSORSHIP PROHIBITED. (a) A social media platform may not censor a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person based on
(1) the viewpoint of the user or another person;
(2) the viewpoint represented in the user ’s expression or another person ’s expression; or
(3) a user’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state.
(b) This section applies regardless of whether the viewpoint is expressed on a social media platform or through any other medium.
Can social media companies respond by suspending all accounts in Texas and access from Texas IP addresses? That might signal their unhappiness at being forced to disseminate hate speech, avoid the legal burden, and push Texans into protesting this law.
Of course any block wouldn't be perfect, and could be avoided by user of VPNs – would that be an issue? Would a "No Access From Texas" banner (or "I confirm that I am not inTexas" button) provide protection, like the over-18 buttons do on sites with people engaging in intimate gymnastics?
Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 7:14 pmCan social media companies respond by suspending all accounts in Texas and access from Texas IP addresses? That might signal their unhappiness at being forced to disseminate hate speech, avoid the legal burden, and push Texans into protesting this law.
Of course any block wouldn't be perfect, and could be avoided by user of VPNs – would that be an issue? Would a "No Access From Texas" banner (or "I confirm that I am not inTexas" button) provide protection, like the over-18 buttons do on sites with people engaging in intimate gymnastics?
W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 8:31 pm
The law in question explicitly prohibits that.
But can't they legitimately argue that they would not be operating or trading within Texas so they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Texas legislature and courts?
W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 8:31 pm
The law in question explicitly prohibits that.
But can't they legitimately argue that they would not be operating or trading within Texas so they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Texas legislature and courts?
Companies trading in vegerables and fruits, but also car manufacturers don't trade with California customers cause of their special state legislation. Transposed to TX imho a company cannot be forced to contract with potential IT service users. Freezing accounts of TX residents would be based on the new legislation, not on free speech violation. While the legislation likely lacks wording as to how handle existing TX resident customers there are sure precedents where companies needed leeway to transition their business model. If the social media companies want to make a display of power they can put up new sign-in dialog: "are you a resient of the US state of TX?" when yes: "Sorry we temporarily have frozen your account until we can comply with new TX legislation". Compliance could take a long time.... Same long as Abotts special border controls.... The whole of TX in a information desert
So Texas is essentially saying that they can FORCE a company to provide service to Texans, even if the company in question doesn't want to because of onerous laws Texas has implemented? I don't get how they can do that. Companies selective serve different things in different states - or serve only some states and not others - a lot of times. Cable companies, for example, don't have to offer nationwide service. They can offer cable in those markets where they think they'll be most cost effective and ignore markets where they think they're likely to lose money. These decisions can be driven by various factors including laws that might make servicing an area more difficult they want to deal with. This Texas law interferes with the ability of a company to manage their bandwidth the way they best see fit, so shouldn't they have the right to opt out of it?
It's worth updating this thread to say that the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Fifth Circuit's stay.
Meanwhile, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the great majority of a lower court's ruling that Florida's similarly-wacky social media law is unconstitutional.
So Texas' law, and most of Florida's law, are currently on hold.