The law also does not cover sites dedicated to news, sports, entertainment and other information that their users do not primarily create. With the exception of some risks of sexual exploitation of children, incitement to criminal activity and violence on covered sites, removal of posts based on their expressions is strictly prohibited.
According to two trade groups challenging the law, the move would force platforms to spread all sorts of objectionable views – such as Russian propaganda claiming that its invasion of Ukraine was justified, ISIS’s. Propaganda claims that extremism is guaranteed, denying or supporting the neo-Nazi or KKK Holocaust, and encouraging children to engage in dangerous or unhealthy behaviors such as eating disorders. “
The law requires that platforms be considered as common carriers that deliver messages to all their users primarily as publishers with editorial discretion.
In a separate case last week, a U.S. court appealed for the 11th Circuit Largely maintained Preliminary injunction against a similar Florida law.
“Social media platforms use editorial decisions that express themselves naturally,” Judge Kevin C. Newsom Written for the panel. “When platforms choose to remove users or posts, prioritize content in viewer’s feeds or search results, or approve violations of their community standards, they engage in safe activity from the First Amendment. There are.”
The First Amendment generally removes government restrictions on speech based on content and point of view. In their emergency petition to the Supreme Court, trade groups challenging Texas law said it violates these rules at every turn. The petition states that “the HB20 is a clearly unconstitutional law that would force the government to give priority speech to elected private entities and would require a great deal of movement for the operation of Internet websites around the world.” “
In response to an emergency request“Platforms are the offspring of the 21st century for telegraph and telephone companies: traditional traditional carriers,” wrote Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas. This means, Mr. Pecton wrote, that they should generally be accepted by all consumers.