The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a controversial Texas law that prohibits content moderation on social media posts based on "viewpoint"-legislation flagged by social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, as a trigger to proliferate hateful content online.
The high court ruling overturns an earlier decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that also overturned a lower court decision that blocked the measure, called HB20.
NetChoice and the U.S. Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA)petitioned the Supreme Court to stop the legislation, which was unblocked by the Fifth Circuit ruling. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito initially reviewed the emergency request to vacate the unblocking of HB20 by the Fifth Circuit and referred it to the rest of the high court.
While Alito himself didn't favor overturning the previous ruling, the majority of Supreme Court justices supported the decision, including Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh. Joining Alito in dissent were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Elena Kagan.
Dangers of HB 20 Noted in Emergency Petition
in their emergency petition with the court, NetChoice and the CCIA said, "HB20 would compel platforms to disseminate all sorts of objectionable viewpoints, such as Russia's propaganda claiming that its invasion of Ukraine is justified, ISIS propaganda claiming that extremism is warranted, neo-Nazi or KKK screeds denying or supporting the Holocaust, and encouraging children to engage in risky or unhealthy behavior like eating disorders."
Texas' Republican attorney general Ken Paxton, meanwhile said HB 20 does not "prohibit the platforms from removing entire categories of content."
Paxton stressed that social media platforms can still make necessary content moderation, such as removing pornography, or disallowing Russian propaganda about Ukraine, without violating HB 20.
Alito's said in his dissent that the case concerns "issues of great importance that will plainly merit this Court's review," describing HB 20 as a measure that "addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day." This Texas law, as well as a similar one from Floridaare expected to get the courts' attention for years to come.
HB 20 Described as 'Constitutional Trainwreck'
NetChoice counsel Chris Marchese hailed the decision, saying HB 20 is a "constitutional trainwreck," adding that his group is "relieved that the First Amendment, open internet, and its users stay protected from "Texas's unconstitutional overreach."
HB 20 was passed in September but blocked by a lower court, which issued a preliminary injunction that prevented it from taking effect. In May, however, a federal appeals court for the Fifth Circuit ruled to stay the injunction pending a final decision on the case, which allowed the law's enactment as the court deliberated on the broader case.
This prompted NetChoice and the Computer and CCIA to file an emergency petition with Alito, who is assigned to cases from that district.
NetChoice and CCIA asked the court to block the law, arguing social media companies make editorial decisions about what content to distribute and display, and that the appeals court's decision would get rid of that discretion and chill speech.
It said the court should vacate the stay as the appeals court reviews the important First Amendment issues central to the case.
