Substitute while the actions of the article are loading
Two Washington-based groups representing Google, Facebook and other technology giants filed an urgent petition with the Supreme Court on Friday, trying to block a Texas law banning social media companies from removing posts based on consumer political ideology. .
The Texas law went into effect Wednesday after the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 5th District of New Orleans overturned a district court order banning it. The appeals court’s action shocked the industry, which largely repulsed the efforts of Republican state leaders to regulate social media companies’ policies to moderate content.
In a lawsuit filed with the Supreme Court, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) said the law was unconstitutional and risked “irreparable damage” to the Internet and business, according to a press release.
The law “deprives private online companies of their speech rights, prohibits them from making constitutionally protected editorial decisions, and forces them to publish and promote unsolicited content,” said NetChoice adviser Chris Marchez in a statement. “Left standing, [the Texas law] will turn the First Amendment upside down – to violate freedom of speech, the government only has to claim to “protect” it.
Texas governor signs bill banning social media giants from blocking consumers based on
The app puts before the nation’s supreme court a battle for the future of online speech that excites politicians in Washington and in state houses. As lawmakers across the country increasingly call for regulation of Silicon Valley’s content moderation policies, they are faced with the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from regulating speech.
The application was filed with Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who was nominated in court by Republican President George W. Bush.
Technology 202: The future of social media can be decided by the Supreme Court
The Texas bill, signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in September, reflects a growing push from Republicans in state houses – while they remain in Washington’s minority – to accuse technology companies of bias against their ideology. The law allows Texas residents and the state’s attorney general to sue social media companies with more than 50 million users in the United States if they believe they have been unfairly banned or censored. The law also requires technology companies, including Google’s Facebook and YouTube, to build a complaint system so people can challenge decisions to remove or report illegal activity.
The law was initially blocked by a federal district judge. But with a surprising ruling Wednesday night, the appeals court overturned the judge’s temporary injunction – allowing the law to take effect while the lower court continues to challenge its validity. When submitting an urgent application to the Supreme Court, technology trade groups are seeking to overturn this decision.
The law reflects conservatives’ longstanding claims that Silicon Valley social media companies are “censoring” them. Companies deny the allegations, but the allegations have become central to Republican political messages. Elon Musk’s recent accusations that Twitter has a “strong left-wing bias” amid its takeover of the company only fuel these allegations.
Why Elon Musk is so polarizing
Florida passed a similar social media law last year that was blocked since it went into effect. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 11th District heard the state’s appeal last month, but did not rule.
Legal experts and technology groups have largely argued that such laws run counter to the First Amendment. They also warn that it could make it difficult for companies to remove harmful and hateful content.
“No online platform, website or newspaper should be directed by government officials to deliver a specific speech,” CCIA President Matt Schrews said in a statement to The Washington Post. “While views may differ on whether online platforms should adopt views such as hate speech or Nazi propaganda, the First Amendment leaves this choice to private citizens and businesses, not bureaucrats.
Add Comment