US Supreme Court blocks Texas social media law against political speech removal

Tech industry groups say law could make social media platforms ‘havens of the vilest expression’

<p>File photo: US Supreme Court judges grant request by tech industry groups to block the law </p>

File photo: US Supreme Court judges grant request by tech industry groups to block the law

The Supreme Court blocked a Texas law that bars social media companies from removing political speech after tech industry groups warned the law could enable hate content on these platforms.

The Texas law prevented social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, as well as other platforms, from blocking content based on “viewpoint”.

It was passed by the state’s Republican-led legislature and signed by Republican governor Gregg Abbott last year, after conservative commentators complained “Big Tech” suppressed right-wing views.

They cited Twitter’s suspension of former president Donald Trump from the platform after the 6 January Capitol riot last year as one such example.

In the latest move, the US Supreme Court sided with technology industry groups, including NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), who argued that the Texas law could turn social media platforms into “havens of the vilest expression imaginable”.

In a 5-4 vote, judges have granted a request by tech industry groups to block the law, while three conservative Justices – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – filed a written dissent.

Justice Alito said he was skeptical of the argument that social media platforms have editorial discretion that is protected by the First Amendment, something enjoyed by newspapers and other publishers.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also joined in the dissent, but has not explained her rationale.

The Texas law, known as HB20, forbade large social media platforms with at least 50 million monthly active users from censoring users based on “viewpoint” and allowed users or the Texas attorney general to sue to enforce it.

“There is a dangerous movement by some social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values. This is wrong and we will not allow it in Texas,” Mr Abbott had said last September when he signed the bill.

Tech industry groups said the law would allow for government control of private speech and restrict their editorial control.

“The government cannot force American businesses to host and spread a mass murderer’s vile manifesto, [Russian president Vladimir] Putin’s anti-west propaganda, or an antisemite’s Holocaust denial,” Chris Marchese, Counsel at NetChoice, said in a statement.

“As we debate how to stop more senseless acts of violence, Texas’s law would force social media to host racist, hateful, and extremist posts,” Adam Kovacevich, chief of Chamber of Progress, a lobbying group for tech companies, told NPR.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in