AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — A federal judge blocked Texas’ controversial new law requiring social media companies to share information about content and user moderation, including how users are removed from their sites.
House Bill 20 was set to take effect Thursday but was enjoined late Wednesday to prevent harm to the companies that fall under the purview of the law.
The underlying lawsuit was filed by two technology trade groups, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican. Together the groups lobby for the interests of internet companies and limited government regulation on the industry. They argued that the law violates companies' First Amendment rights to editorial discretion regarding the content published on their sites.
HB 20 was passed by the GOP-controlled Texas Legislature during the second special session called this year by Governor Greg Abbott in early September. Abbott, also a Republican, quickly signed the bill into law, characterizing it as preserving Texans' First Amendment rights.
“Social media websites have become our modern-day public square... but there is a dangerous movement by companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas,” Abbott said at the time.
The law labels social media companies as common carriers, which require they be open to all for use as a public forum. Platforms with over 50 million users, including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, are required to disclose all information regarding how they target users, promote content, moderate users and use algorithms. Users who allege wrongful censorship are also given the ability to sue companies for injunctive relief and attorneys fees.
Additionally, the legislation directs platforms to publish a biannual “transparency report” that discloses the number of times the platform took action to remove content or users due to violating the platform’s content policies.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman, a Barack Obama appointee, issued a 30-page ruling Wednesday evening blocking HB 20 from taking effect, writing that he "starts from the premise that social media platforms are not common carriers.”
Unlike transportation or telecommunication companies, Pitman said social media companies are not required to provide access to everyone because they are not neutral in the transmission of their users’ speech.
“User-generated content on social media platforms is screened and sometimes moderated or curated," the judge wrote. “The state balks that the screening is done by an algorithm, not a person, but whatever the method, social media platforms are not mere conduits.”
Texas argued that, for example, social media platforms cannot ban pro-Nazi content but allow anti-white content. But Pitman rejected that notion, citing the plaintiffs' example that publishing a speech by Adolf Hitler could be done with the purpose of either promoting Nazism or pointing out the atrocities of the Hitler regime.
“HB 20 seems to place social media platforms in the untenable position of choosing, for example, to promote Nazism against its wishes or ban Nazism as a content category," the ruling states. "HB 20’s prohibitions on 'censorship' and constraints on how social media platforms disseminate content violate the First Amendment."
Turning to the provision allowing users in Texas to sue social media companies, Pitman found it interferes with the moderation policies set forth by the platforms and that the threat of legal action chilled their First Amendment rights.
Furthermore, the judge held the disclosure requirements made by HB 20 are burdensome on companies and have the potential for trade secrets to be revealed.
Matt Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, said in a statement that the ruling supports the right to speech and makes social media sites safer places.
“Without this temporary injunction, Texas’ social media law would make the internet a more dangerous place by tying the hands of companies protecting users from abuse, scams, or extremist propaganda,” he said.
NetChoice and the CCIA also sued Florida earlier this year for passing a similar law aimed at limiting social media companies’ ability to moderate content and users. A federal judge in that case also blocked parts of the law that were found to violate the First Amendment. The Sunshine State has since appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit.
Neither Abbott nor Paxton have said whether they plan to appeal Pitman's ruling.
Follow @KirkReportsNews
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Minnesota governor appoints two Supreme Court justices April 22, 2024 -
