Supreme Court blocks Texas social media law that tech companies warn would allow hate content to run rampant

Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked A controversial Texas social media law is in effect, after warnings from the tech industry and other opponents that it could allow hateful content to run rampant online.

Judgment does not rule on the merits of law, which is known as HB20, but reenacts an injunction that prevents it from taking effect while federal courts decide whether it can be enforced. The Supreme Court may be asked to take a look at the constitutionality of the law in future.

Five judges on the court voted to block the law for now. Justice Samuel Alito issued a written dissent from the decision, which included two other Conservative judges, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Elena Kagan, a moderate, also voted to allow the law to remain in effect while a challenge to it is pending.

The law prohibits online platforms from moderating or removing content based on point of view. This stems from a general allegation on the right that major California-based social media platforms such as Facebook And Twitter are biased in their moderation strategies and disproportionately quiet conservative voices. The platforms have said that they enforce their community guidelines equally and that right-leaning users often rank highest in engagement.

Two industry groups representing tech companies include: heroineFacebook, Google And Twitter claimed in its emergency application with the court, “HB20 will force platforms to broadcast all kinds of offensive perspectives, such as Russia’s propaganda claiming that its invasion of Ukraine is justified, ISIS propaganda claims.” That extremism is warranted, denies or supports the neo-Nazi or KKK Holocaust, and encourages children to engage in risky or unhealthy behaviors such as eating disorders.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, has said that is not the case, writing in a emergency response response That law “does not prohibit the Platform from removing entire categories of content.”

“So, for example,” the response says, “platforms may decide to eliminate pornography without violating HB20… Platforms may also ban foreign government speech without violating HB20 , so they don’t need to host Russia’s propaganda about Ukraine.”

Alito’s dissent was opened by acknowledging the importance of the matter to social media companies and the states that would control how those companies could control the content on their platforms.

“This application deals with issues of great importance that will clearly deserve the review of this Court,” Alito wrote. “Social media platforms have changed the way people communicate with each other and receive news. The issue is a key Texas law that empowers major social media corporations to shape public discussion of important issues of the day. addresses.”

Alito said he would have let the law remain in effect as the case moves through the federal courts. He emphasized that he “has not formed a definitive view on the novel legal questions that arise from Texas’ decision to address the ‘changing social and economic’ conditions that arise.”

“But precisely because of that, I am not comfortable interfering with the proceedings at this point,” he wrote. “While I can understand the court’s apparent desire to delay enforcement of HB20 while the appeal is pending, the preliminary injunction entered by the District Court itself was a significant intrusion on the sovereignty of the state, and allowed Texas to pre-empt the federal courts.” – There should be no need to take permission. Before its law comes into force.”

The law was passed in September, but was blocked by a lower court, which granted a preliminary injunction preventing it from taking effect. This changed when a federal court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit. ruled to stay on mandate in mid-May A final decision on the matter is pending, which means a law can be made while the court deliberates on the wider case.

This inspired two tech industry groups, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), to to file an emergency petition With Alito, who is entrusted with the affairs of that district.

Net Choice and CCIA asked the court To prevent the law from taking effect, arguing that social media companies make editorial decisions about what content to distribute and display, and an appeals court decision, would get rid of that discretion and sober speech. It said the court should vacate the adjournment as the appeals court reviews First Amendment issues important to the case.

“Texas’s HB20 is a constitutional trainwreck — or, as the district court has put it, an example of ‘burning down the house to roast a pig,'” NetChoice attorney Chris Marches said in response to Tuesday’s ruling. “We are relieved that the First Amendment, the open Internet, and the users who rely on it are protected from Texas’ unconstitutional redundancies.”

“No online platform, website or newspaper should be directed by government officials to deliver certain speeches,” said CCIA President Matt Schruer. “This has been a key tenet of our democracy for more than 200 years and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has implications for other states that may consider similar legislation as Texas. Florida’s legislature has already passed a similar social media law, but it has so far been blocked by courts.

A federal appeals court for the Eleventh Circuit, shortly after the emergency appeals of technical groups in the Texas case Upheld an injunction against a similar law in Florida., concluding unanimously that content moderation is protected by the Constitution. Florida’s Attorney General filed a justice friend brief On behalf of his state and several others, the court urged the court to continue allowing the Texas law to take effect, arguing that the industry had misinterpreted the law and required states to regulate businesses in this way. have the right.

State laws serve as a preliminary testing ground for ways in which the US Congress is considering improving the legal liability shield tech platforms have relied on for years to moderate their services. . that law, Section 230 of the Communication Decency ActPrevents Online Platforms from being responsible for content users post on their Services and also gives them the ability to moderate or remove posts in good faith.

The law has come under criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, but for different reasons. Democrats want to reform the law to give tech platforms more responsibility to moderate what they see as dangerous content, including misinformation. While Republicans agree that certain types of content such as terrorist recruitment or child sexual abuse material should be removed, many want to make it harder for platforms to engage in some other form of moderation that they see as ideological censorship.

Former Representative Christopher Cox, R-Calif., one of the authors of Section 230, filed a justice friend brief Supporting the plea of ​​industry groups in the Supreme Court to withdraw the moratorium. In short, Cox argues that HB20 is “in irreparable conflict” with Section 230, which must precede state law.

Nevertheless, at least one Supreme Court judge Already expressed interest in reviewing section 230,

In 2020, Thomas, a Conservative, wrote That “in an appropriate case, we should consider whether the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by Internet platforms.”

Last year, he suggested in a consensus that online platforms “may be sufficiently similar to common carriers or places of residence to be regulated as such.”

–CNBC’s Dan Mangan contributed to this report.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

See: The Messy Business of Content Moderation on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube