Court lets Texas restrictions on internet moderation take effect

[Ohio Joe]

A controversial Texas social media law will take effect following a ruling today from a US appeals court. The law allows Paxton’s office or Texas residents to sue social networks that moderate based on “the viewpoint of the user or another person,” among other offenses — language that potentially makes basic moderation decisions legally risky. Opponents of the law managed to block HB 20 in court last year, but this victory has been undone by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which today granted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s request for a stay in NetChoice and CCIA v. Paxton.

The ruling follows a confusing hearing where a Fifth Circuit judge claimed web services like Twitter “are not websites” and compared them to phone companies like Verizon, which are governed under common carrier law. NetChoice and the CCIA can choose to mount an emergency appeal, but without quick intervention from a higher level like the Supreme Court, the law is now in force.

“In an unusual and unfortunate move, a split 2-1 Fifth Circuit panel lifted the injunction without ruling on the merits and without issuing an opinion explaining the order. Because HB 20 is constitutionally rotten through and through, we are weighing our options and plan to appeal the order immediately,” said Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of NetChoice.

“We are weighing our options and plan to appeal the order immediately”
HB 20 covers web services that have more than 50 million active monthly users and rely primarily on user-generated content. That includes giant networks like Facebook but also many smaller sites and apps. It also applies rules specifically to email providers. It’s an unprecedented decision to let state governments control how companies moderate websites. It conflicts with a different circuit’s decision to block a similar law in Florida, potentially setting up a Supreme Court fight over moderation — which some justices seem eager to take on.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/court-lets-texas-restrictions-on-internet-moderation-take-effect/ar-AAXaAHW?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e213389a756545b4afe5cee9de35607f

Any site that allows comments should turn off access to Texas immediately.

[SWBTATTReg]

1. This seems to go against these companies 1st Amendment / Free Speech right. I don't foresee

this going into effect, especially ruling web services are not websites, but sites that are governed by telephone carriers . . these carriers at least have the entire PUC public utility commissions of each state to sit down w/ each regulated telephone carriers and work out operations etc. Nothing about free speech or the telephone companies moderating speech on the phone network, no comparison.

[LeftInTX]

2. It will go to the SC and they will rule in favor of Texas because they always do...

[Demsrule86]

3. So take all social media out of Texas...see how they like it.

[LeftInTX]

5. I don't think social media can do this

They're part of some "interstate" thing. That's why Ted Cruz is always hauling them into the senate for hearings.

[SWBTATTReg]

6. I assume you mean 'It will go to the SC...'? Or, are you yourself going? If so, I wish you

all the best, in successfully arguing the matter before the SC. Perhaps I misunderstood?

[LeftInTX]

9. LOL...Too many typos in my life!

[SWBTATTReg]

11. Ha hah ha! Actually, I kind of thought perhaps a typo, but I got a kick of it. But I'm telling the

truth, that if you or anyone was going to argue the case in front of the SC (and its possible, there are a lot of different people w/ different occupations on DU, tons of them), I'd give them tons of encouragement. One thing about TX regulating content too on Internet Platforms (or whatever platform that crazy judge means, doesn't make sense at all, being that I'm an old telephone guy and worked w/ various public utility commissions in the past, including TX. These Internet Providers have always been unregulated entities, being that the age of Computers was upon us, and not regulating these Internet entities was to encourage their growth in a new media (the Internet).

Take care.

[LeftInTX]

12. Ted Cruz is always hauling google, twitter and fb into senate hearings.

Apparently there is something about these platforms that I feel he does have a justification. I think they may get subsidies from the federal govt?? Anyway, he posts about this ad nauseum, (in 2020, he would post about it 10 times a day) so I couldn't help but notice it.

[SWBTATTReg]

13. Yeah, I know (about the psuedo regulations that these 'Internet Companies' are supposedly to

be under). One argument I made to the telephone company when I worked there (and my primary job was bringing in the Internet (vs. the overwhelming voice world of the Telephone Companies)) was that no one knows where the tail end of these Internet calls end up at. You could go through multiple data networks, multiple host(s), etc. which may reroute these calls to who knows where, and never even know truly where the data call terminates.

Phone companies use the terminating address to do a lot of things, such as determining taxation to apply on such calls, what jurisdiction to use in applying rating on such calls (if it applied), etc. The list is endless.

The voice world people were just flabbergasted to death that data calls were so unpredictable, so difficult to trace truly. This is why states should not be allowed to regulate the Internet and the associated data calls. How does the state know what rates to apply to such calls? Rating and / or taxing could be wrong or incorrect and then you would have a mess on your hands. Thus, they (regulators) tend to treat these calls kind of like Interstate calls, where the normal interstate taxing applies (and other taxes such as Excise taxes (which I don't think are still applicable but they may still be (excise taxes)).

These people like you say, Ted Cruz, don't know what he's talking about, w/ regards to these data applications such as Google, etc. It's funny that he picks on these larger Internet Service Providers, but what about the Mom and Pop Internet site down the street from you? They don't have the resources to develop additional apps if needed should state legislatures pass something that requires an additional level of knowledge by the app in order to fulfill state requirements.

I suspect that some apps will pull out, causing a reduction in the full suite of Internet apps / Service Providers available to customers (you and I) and thus, led to a reduction in job numbers (less app developers, etc. needed), and other nonsense items not currently needed. In short, a mess caused by stupid people in some states enacting poorly written bills attempting to regulate a thoroughly difficult product (the Internet).

[Takket]

4. No one on twitter gets banned for their "viewpoint"

They get banned for violations of the terms of service.

So good luck to anyone suing proving they were banned for their viewpoint.

Problem is MAGAts by the millions will use this to jam up social media with so many lawsuits they won’t be able to afford to fight them all.

[LeftInTX]

8. People get put in FB jail for comparing Trump to Hitler

[msongs]

7. well bye bye google and youtube and facebook and instagram and tons of other things nt

[dalton99a]

10. Kick

[TheBlackAdder]

14. 50 Million. So that was a targeted bill designed to avoid Truth Social and all other RW sites.

[okaawhatever]

15. Good catch. nt

[Ohio Joe]

16. +1 - nt