The
justices, in a 5-4 decision, granted a request by NetChoice and
the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which count
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube as members, to block the law while
litigation continues after a lower court on May 11 let it go
into effect.
The industry groups sued to try to block the law, challenging it
as a violation of the free speech rights of companies, including
to editorial discretion on their platforms, under the U.S.
Constitution's First Amendment.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil
Gorsuch issued a written dissent, saying that it is "not at all
obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of
the internet, should apply to large social media companies."
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan separately dissented but did not
offer any reasons.
The Texas law was passed by the state's Republican-led
legislature and signed by its Republican governor. Its passage
comes as U.S. conservatives and right-wing commentators complain
that "Big Tech" is suppressing their views. These people cite as
a prominent example Twitter's permanent suspension of Republican
former President Donald Trump from the platform shortly after
the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of his
supporters, with the company citing "the risk of further
incitement of violence."
The law, formally known as HB20, forbids social media companies
with at least 50 million monthly active users from acting to
"censor" users based on "viewpoint," and allows either users or
the Texas attorney general to sue to enforce it.
In signing the bill last September, Texas Governor Greg Abbott
said, "There is a dangerous movement by some social media
companies to silence conservative ideas and values. This is
wrong and we will not allow it in Texas."
The industry groups said the state's law would
unconstitutionally allow for government control of private
speech. Restricting the platforms' editorial control, the groups
said, "would compel platforms to disseminate all sorts of
objectionable viewpoints - such as Russia's propaganda claiming
that its invasion of Ukraine is justified."
"Instead of platforms engaging in editorial discretion,
platforms will become havens of the vilest expression
imaginable: pro-Nazi speech, hostile foreign government
propaganda, pro-terrorist-organization speech, and countless
more examples," they added.
The groups also denounced what they called "viewpoint
discrimination against 'Big Tech,'" in the Texas law through its
exclusion of smaller social media platforms popular among
conservatives such as Parler, Gab, Gettr and Trump's own Truth
Social.
U.S. Judge Robert Pitman in the state capital Austin blocked the
law last December. Pitman ruled that the constraints on how the
platforms disseminate content violate the First Amendment.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
subsequently put Pitman's decision on hold two days after
hearing oral arguments in the case. The 5th Circuit has yet to
issue a ruling on the merits of the case.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2022 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|
|