The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued a stay that will temporarily prevent a Texas law aimed at protecting free speech online from taking effect.
HB 20 would prevent social media companies from censoring certain viewpoints online.
The order reverses a decision in September that upheld the law. Last month, NewsBusters reported that Fifth Circuit Judge Adam Oldham rejected the idea that “corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”
Wednesday’s court order indicates that the motion was unopposed by Texas, suggesting that the state is more than willing to wait and see if the Supreme Court of the United States decides to hear the case.
The issue will likely come before the Supreme Court this term. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have both questioned the influence and power of social media platforms.
In a May opinion that vacated the stay of HB 20, Alito wrote that the law “concerns issues of great importance that will plainly merit this Court’s review.”
He added that social media platforms have “transformed” communication and news reporting.
“Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news,” he wrote.
Last year, Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that “private digital platforms” have the most power to “cut off speech.”
“[T]he right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions,” his opinion read.
The case originally questioned whether former President Donald Trump could “block” users on Twitter. Thomas also argued that social media is “sufficiently akin” to a common carrier, like a phone company or other public utility.
“[I]n assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is,” Thomas added.
Tech groups suing the state over the constitutionality of the law are eager for the Supreme Court to step in as well.
NetChoice, a tech group that lists Amazon, Google, and Meta among its associate members, insists that the law will “bury the internet in vile content.” The company also expressed relief that the law will not take effect “until the case can be heard by the Supreme Court.”
“Because Texas H.B. 20 would bury the internet in vile content, we’re relieved that it will remain enjoined until the case can be heard by the Supreme Court,” Chris Marchese, NetChoice’s counsel, said in a statement about the decision.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued a stay that will temporarily prevent a Texas law aimed at protecting free speech online from taking effect.
HB 20 would prevent social media companies from censoring certain viewpoints online.
The order reverses a decision in September that upheld the law. Last month, NewsBusters reported that Fifth Circuit Judge Adam Oldham rejected the idea that “corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”
Wednesday’s court order indicates that the motion was unopposed by Texas, suggesting that the state is more than willing to wait and see if the Supreme Court of the United States decides to hear the case.
The issue will likely come before the Supreme Court this term. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have both questioned the influence and power of social media platforms.
In a May opinion that vacated the stay of HB 20, Alito wrote that the law “concerns issues of great importance that will plainly merit this Court’s review.”
He added that social media platforms have “transformed” communication and news reporting.
“Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news,” he wrote.
Last year, Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that “private digital platforms” have the most power to “cut off speech.”
“[T]he right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions,” his opinion read.
The case originally questioned whether former President Donald Trump could “block” users on Twitter. Thomas also argued that social media is “sufficiently akin” to a common carrier, like a phone company or other public utility.
“[I]n assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is,” Thomas added.
Tech groups suing the state over the constitutionality of the law are eager for the Supreme Court to step in as well.
NetChoice, a tech group that lists Amazon, Google, and Meta among its associate members, insists that the law will “bury the internet in vile content.” The company also expressed relief that the law will not take effect “until the case can be heard by the Supreme Court.”
“Because Texas H.B. 20 would bury the internet in vile content, we’re relieved that it will remain enjoined until the case can be heard by the Supreme Court,” Chris Marchese, NetChoice’s counsel, said in a statement about the decision.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
