Since May 11, a law passed in 2021 that prohibits “censorship” on social networks has come into effect in Texas. This law, called HB 20, had been blocked in December by a federal court in the state. A decision suspended on appeal. The judges surprisingly considered that YouTube and Twitter are not websites, but Internet service providers.
Facebook, Google and YouTube are not websites according to a judge (???)
It was Ken Paxton, a Texas attorney general, who appealed the ban on HB 20. According to him, the law establishes that ” platforms cannot censor users based on their views. It defines censorship as blocking, banning, removing, demonetizing, denying equal access or more broadly as discrimination of expression », Reports Ars-Technica.
Elon Musk argues with Twitter’s legal team
He got three U.S. Court of Appeals judges to suspend the ban on the law. A decision that was not taken unanimously. Indeed, censorship on social networks is a central subject for Republicans. They have already tried to pass a law in Florida to stop this “censorship” which they attribute to the Democrats and their relationship with Silicon Valley.
Two tech lobbies, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications & Industry Association (CCIA), spoke during oral argument on May 9. During this hearing, some judges expressed points of view that weaken the solidity of the HB 20 law. For one of the judges, Edith Jones, Facebook, Google and YouTube are not websites, but service providers. ‘Internet access. She adds that ” in the law they are defined as interactive computer services which is totally different from a website according to her.
The NetChoice lawyer, who represents companies such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter and eBay, defended the idea that websites should be protected by the First Amendment. No law should be able to restrict their freedom to moderate content as they wish.
Social networks are surprisingly likened to telephone operators
By playing on the terminology to qualify the platforms, the judges decided to restore the law on Wednesday May 11. According to them, social networks that are similar to internet service providers have an obligation of neutrality. They cannot therefore moderate content according to the points of view expressed.
Describing websites as internet service providers allowed Judge Andrew Oldham to draw a questionable parallel between social networks and telephone operators. He asked if ” Verizon (American telephone operator) could decide to listen to telephone calls and stop ongoing calls if the company does not agree with the opinions expressed? »
According to Robert Pitman, the judge who initially blocked the law, it restricts the right of platforms to enjoy the First Amendment by preventing them from expressing their opinion on content. For example, a social network could no longer flag a post as misinformation. The risk of a platform being sued for violating Texas law would curtail its freedom of speech. Finally, the judge adds that the law only concerns sites that have 50 million active users per month.
NBC News reported that NetChoice and the CCIA filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court on Friday May 13 to block the law. According to them, the decision taken by the three judges is ” very unusual because no written decision was provided. They also asked that the temporary blockage of the law be reinstated while an orderly appeal process takes place.