Washington
CNN Business
—
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked a sweeping Texas law that restricts the ability of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to moderate content on their platforms. By a 5-4 vote, the justices granted an emergency request by the tech industry to block a lower court order that would have allowed the law to go into effect, pending legal challenges.
In an unusual lineup, the five justices in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan was joined by conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, who reportedly denied the request.
The Supreme Court order is a loss for Texas. The state argued that its law, HB 20, which prohibits large social media companies from blocking, banning or demoting posts or accounts, does not violate the First Amendment.
The majority did not explain their thinking, and Kagan did not state his own reasoning for his vote to allow the law to remain in effect.
But Alito, writing for himself, Thomas and Gorsuch, criticized the majority’s decision. He said the case raises “hugely important” questions regarding a “groundbreaking” Texas law that addresses “the power of social media’s dominant corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.” He stressed that a “definitive view” had not been formed on the novel legal issues arising from the law, but that he would not have intervened to block the law “at this point in the process.”
“Texas should not be required to seek prior authorization from federal courts before its laws take effect,” Alito wrote.
Opponents of HB 20, including the tech industry, argued that the legislation infringes on the constitutional rights of tech platforms to make editorial decisions and be free from government-compelled speech.
The state argued that HB 20 does not violate the First Amendment because the law seeks to regulate the conduct of technology platforms toward their users, not the speech of the companies, and that it seeks to designate them as “common carriers” similar to railroads and carriers. telephone. .
The broader case is seen as a benchmark for the social media industry and could determine whether tech platforms have to reduce their content moderation by anything more than Texas, and allow a wide range of material that their terms currently prohibit.
The Computer and Communications Industry Association, one of the groups behind the emergency petition, said the decision upholds more than 200 years of free speech principles against government infringement on private expression.
“We appreciate the Supreme Court ensuring that First Amendment protections, including the right not to be coerced to speak, will be upheld during the legal challenge of the Texas social media law,” said CCIA President Matt Schruers. . “That the Supreme Court take into account the constitutional risks of this law is important not only for online businesses and freedom of expression, but also as a key principle for democratic countries.”
CNN has reached out to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for comment.
In a separate dispute, a different federal appeals court has upheld most of a similar law outside of Florida, creating a circuit division on the issue. Often the Supreme Court is more likely to become involved in a dispute if the lower courts are in direct conflict.
The Texas law is being challenged by advocacy groups representing the tech industry.
In court documents, the groups called the law “an unprecedented assault on the editorial discretion of private websites.” They warn that it “would force platforms to spread all sorts of objectionable viewpoints, such as Russian propaganda claiming its invasion of Ukraine is justified, ISIS propaganda claiming extremism is justified, neo-Nazi or KKK tirades.” who deny or support the Holocaust, and encourage children to engage in risky or unhealthy behaviors, such as eating disorders.”
In response, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argued that HB 20 does not infringe on the speech rights of tech platforms.
The legal battle attracted “friend of the court” reports from interested parties, including groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the NAACP, who had urged the Court to block the law, arguing that it will “transform social media platforms into online repositories.” of vile, graphic, harmful, hateful and fraudulent content, of no use to the people currently participating in those communities.”
A group of states led by Florida also filed a court filing in defense of the Texas law. The friend-of-the-court brief, which was written by a dozen states, including Alabama, Arizona, Kentucky and South Carolina, among others, reflects how the legal battle over HB 20 has national ramifications.
Reference-www.cnn.com