| 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.
 
				 
				  |  |