Supreme Court urged to halt 'unconstitutional' Texas content-no-moderation law

Everyone's entitled to a viewpoint but what's your viewpoint on what exactly is and isn't a viewpoint?


A coalition of advocacy groups on Tuesday asked the US Supreme Court to block Texas' social media law HB 20 after the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last week lifted a preliminary injunction that had kept it from taking effect.

The Lone Star State law, which forbids large social media platforms from moderating content that's "lawful-but-awful," as advocacy group the Center for Democracy and Technology puts it, was approved last September by Governor Greg Abbott (R). It was immediately challenged in court and the judge hearing the case imposed a preliminary injunction, preventing the legislation from being enforced, on the basis that the trade groups opposing it – NetChoice and CCIA – were likely to prevail.

But that injunction was lifted on appeal. That case continues to be litigated, but thanks to the Fifth Circuit, HB 20 can be enforced even as its constitutionality remains in dispute, hence the coalition's application [PDF] this month to the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, Texas responded by urging [PDF] the Supremes to keep its law in place. State Attorney General Ken Paxton argued that social networks should be treated as "common carriers," and the legislation only tackles the tech giants' treatment of netizens as opposed to limiting anyone's speech.

Like a similar law passed in Florida that's also being fought in court, HB 20's purported aim in Texas is to "protect first amendment rights" against what Governor Abbott described as "a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas."

Setting aside multiple studies debunking his unsupported claim that social media sites unfairly censor conservative content, HB 20 has been widely derided by legal experts for violating the very thing its backers claim the law is protecting – the US First Amendment.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment limits the US government, not companies or people. Applied to the Texas Legislature, it prevents the state government from adopting rules that interfere with free speech. Yet that's just what opponents of HB 20 say Texas has done by limiting how large social companies can deal with the content people post online.

By banning large social media companies from blocking or removing content based on "the viewpoint" expressed unless it's illegal (eg obscene material), the law ensures the wide distribution of "lawful-but-awful" content, like misinformation, abusive posts, and hate speech. It might also deter the takedown of violent video like the live stream of the May 14 mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, that surfaced on Twitch and other websites.

The author of the law disputes this, noting that the law contains a provision for censorship decisions made by platforms in good faith.

But a claim against a social media site for violating HB 20 through a content takedown would still require a trip to court to establish that affirmative defense. And because the law grants any Texan standing to sue, social media sites look likely to face a lot of lawsuits, at considerable expense, if they remove content.

HB 20 also "prohibits email service providers from impeding the transmission of email messages based on content," as Abbott's press release explains.

Groups up in arms

"We believe the Texas law is destined to fail on First Amendment grounds," said Alexandra Reeve Givens, CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), a technology and civil rights group, in a statement. "Every court to consider the question has found that social media platforms have a First Amendment right to edit and curate the content they publish on their sites."

CDT, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the National Coalition Against Censorship, R Street Institute, the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation together submitted an amicus brief [PDF] asking the Supreme Court to intervene and restore the preliminary injunction vacated last week by the Fifth Circuit.

"Every court that has considered the issue has found that social media platforms have a First Amendment right to edit and curate the content they publish on their sites," the brief says. "As practiced by social media platforms – including the large platforms that HB20 regulates – content moderation is the exercise of editorial judgment."

Meanwhile, in Michigan, state legislators discussed a similar bill, HB 5973, "to prohibit certain censorship by certain social media platforms." ®


Other stories you might like

  • LGBTQ+ folks warned of dating app extortion scams
    Uncle Sam tells of crooks exploiting Pride Month

    The FTC is warning members of the LGBTQ+ community about online extortion via dating apps such as Grindr and Feeld.

    According to the American watchdog, a common scam involves a fraudster posing as a potential romantic partner on one of the apps. The cybercriminal sends explicit of a stranger photos while posing as them, and asks for similar ones in return from the mark. If the victim sends photos, the extortionist demands a payment – usually in the form of gift cards – or threatens to share the photos on the chat to the victim's family members, friends, or employer.

    Such sextortion scams have been going on for years in one form or another, even attempting to hit Reg hacks, and has led to suicides.

    Continue reading
  • Europol arrests nine suspected of stealing 'several million' euros via phishing
    Victims lured into handing over online banking logins, police say

    Europol cops have arrested nine suspected members of a cybercrime ring involved in phishing, internet scams, and money laundering.

    The alleged crooks are believed to have stolen "several million euros" from at least "dozens of Belgian victims," according to that nation's police, which, along with the Dutch, supported the cross-border operation.

    On Tuesday, after searching 24 houses in the Netherlands, officers cuffed eight men between the ages of 25 and 36 from Amsterdam, Almere, Rotterdam, and Spijkenisse, and a 25-year-old woman from Deventer. We're told the cops seized, among other things, a firearm, designer clothing, expensive watches, and tens of thousands of euros.

    Continue reading
  • India extends deadline for compliance with infosec logging rules by 90 days
    Helpfully announced extension on deadline day

    Updated India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the local Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) have extended the deadline for compliance with the Cyber Security Directions introduced on April 28, which were due to take effect yesterday.

    The Directions require verbose logging of users' activities on VPNs and clouds, reporting of infosec incidents within six hours of detection - even for trivial things like unusual port scanning - exclusive use of Indian network time protocol servers, and many other burdensome requirements. The Directions were purported to improve the security of local organisations, and to give CERT-In information it could use to assess threats to India. Yet the Directions allowed incident reports to be sent by fax – good ol' fax – to CERT-In, which offered no evidence it operates or would build infrastructure capable of ingesting or analyzing the millions of incident reports it would be sent by compliant organizations.

    The Directions were roundly criticized by tech lobby groups that pointed out requirements such as compelling clouds to store logs of customers' activities was futile, since clouds don't log what goes on inside resources rented by their customers. VPN providers quit India and moved their servers offshore, citing the impossibility of storing user logs when their entire business model rests on not logging user activities. VPN operators going offshore means India's government is therefore less able to influence such outfits.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022