Discussion

• Vox Ian Millhiser on x

  The Supreme Court shuts down Texas's attempt to seize control of social media — for now

• @steve_vladeck Steve Vladeck on x

  To be clear, the headline here is *not* the dissent; it's that Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett *all* voted to block HB20. That's a pretty powerful sign of where #SCOTUS is heading on this case—and issue—even if the dissent's analysis is ... alarming.…

• @turkewitz Eric Turkewitz on x

  I'm shocked that is a 5-4 decision. This should be a no-brainer as the law clearly infringes 1A rights. Supreme Court temporarily blocks Texas's social media moderation law https://www.cnn.com/...

• @sarahjeong Sarah Jeong on x

  clarence thomas's views on social media moderation *closely* align with the 5th circuit's brainworms take. his wife promoted the jan 6 rally on her facebook — a violent insurrection that had only one real consequence for trump: getting banned on social media

• @sarahjeong Sarah Jeong on x

  it's really easy — and honestly tempting for the legal commentariat — to get lost in the weeds on this. but we cannot lose sight of the fact that these takes on social media regulation are in direct response to Facebook and Twitter clamping down on election misinformation in 2020

• @steve_vladeck Steve Vladeck on x

  By a 5-4 vote (with Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and ... Kagan?) in dissent, #SCOTUS *blocks* Texas's controversial law that would have banned most content moderation by big social media platforms (vacating the Fifth Circuit's stay of an injunction): https://www.justsecurity.…

• @amandacarpenter Amanda Carpenter on x

  Ken Paxton, among many things, is a terrible lawyer https://twitter.com/...

• @digiphile Alex Howard on x

  When a tech company adopts a civic integrity @policy & enforces it, it asserts a bias towards facts. The conflict with lies, rumors, & conspiracies becomes structural, which is why people who believe “alternative facts” perceive a bias “against viewpoints” https://www.washingtonp…

• @digiphile Alex Howard on x

  Tech companies aren't censoring “controversial” posts based on ideological POV — unconstitutional if elected officials did it. They've removed lies & misinfo about vaccines & voter fraud, & conspiracies about pedophilia, which affects liars & conspiracists https://www.wsj.com/...…

• @steve_vladeck Steve Vladeck on x

  On why Kagan would've denied the application, yes, she's been consistent in criticizing many grants of emergency relief. But she *hasn't* been categorically against voting to grant such relief in all cases, e.g., SB8; the CMS vaccine mandate cases; etc. So it's not *just* that.

• @attorneynora Nora Benavidez on x

  BREAKING! Good news that SCOTUS has halted the unconstitutional TX law which would allow gov't to regulate/dictate the content & manner in which social media companies moderate speech. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ ...

• @imillhiser Ian Millhiser on x

  One of the many unnerving things about this Supreme Court is that even the really easy cases, where Republicans clearly and obviously violated the Constitution, are nail-biters. https://www.vox.com/...

• @chrisgeidner Chris Geidner on x

  JUST IN: #SCOTUS, on a 5-4 vote, reinstates a district court order that prevents Texas's #HB20 social media law from going into effect. (The 5th Circuit had blocked the district court's order; SCOTUS vacated the 5th Circuit's order.) https://twitter.com/...

• @b_fung Brian Fung on x

  The stakes of this early-stage decision were high: If even one justice had voted the other way, it would've affirmed Texans' ability to sue social media for alleged censorship or political discrimination. Legal experts warned it would create total chaos: https://www.cnn.com/...

• @dsilverman Dwight Silverman on x

  There are a lot of stupid laws coming out of the #txlege lately, but this is possibly the stupidest one. High Court Halts Texas Law Targeting Social Media Platforms (2) https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ ...

• @chrisgeidner Chris Geidner on x

  Alito writing that “existing law” must justify such an order — even as Texas's #SB8 six-week abortion ban remains in effect — shows how brazen his disregard of consistency and principles has gotten. And Thomas and Gorsuch join him! https://twitter.com/...

• @digiphile Alex Howard on x

  GREAT news: The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked an unconstitutional Texas law that would violate the First Amendment rights of private companies not to distribute or host speech on their platforms. https://www.cnn.com/... Bad news: It was a 5-4 vote.

• @chrisgeidner Chris Geidner on x

  The majority — Chief Justice Roberts & Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, & Barrett — did not explain their reasoning. Justice Kagan did not explain why she would have kept the stay. Only Justice Alito, for himself & Justices Thomas and Gosuch, wrote. https://www.supremecourt…

• @mitchel13290681 Mitchell on x

  Kagan may have dissented from the relief portion of the Court's decision, but she did NOT join Alito's dissent. Her dissent appears purely procedural. https://twitter.com/...

• @joshablock Josh Block on x

  The fact that this was only 5-4 should drive home that we don't have any clue about what is settled law anymore with this Court. All sorts of things are suddenly up for grabs. Does anyone think it would have been a 5-4 vote if a law like this had been passed by CA in 2016? https:…

• @rexchapman Rex Chapman on x

  Texas is like a different country. https://twitter.com/...

• @irin Irin Carmon on x

  Alito's “Texas should not be required to seek preclearance from the federal courts before its laws go into effect” 👀 https://twitter.com/...

• @prolitika @prolitika on x

  @sarahjeong it should probably be at least somewhat concerning that 3 justices, 2 of them having served on the court for ~2 decades, are publicly and loudly legitimizing “legal analysis” from Fox News talking heads

• @clearing_fog @clearing_fog on x

  Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch wanted to allow Texas to enforce a law to prevent “West Coast oligarchs” from silencing “conservative viewpoints and ideas.” The law would have allowed Texas citizens to sue social media companies for “censoring” them. https://twitter.com/...

• @kevinbankston Kevin Bankston on x

  @CaseyNewton It's also just incorrect. Reno v ACLU, which is *explicitly about the internet,* is the key precedent here.

• @slpng_giants @slpng_giants on x

  Pretty incredible that 4 justices voted FOR this. The Internet is in a precarious place. https://twitter.com/...

• @chrisgeidner Chris Geidner on x

  Alito reeeeeally wanted to let process to overrule substance, yet again, but he lost Kavanaugh and Barrett. This is just another version of the rationale for why the Court allowed #SB8 to go into effect. Remember “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions”? https://twitte…

• @qjurecic @qjurecic on x

  ["Texas also suggests that applicants' position in this litigation is in conflict or tension with the positions of its members in cases regarding the interpretation of §230"] To clarify, this argument is as wrong as an argument could be. It's just ... incorrect. 230 explicitly gr…

• @chrisalbertolaw @chrisalbertolaw on x

  By only 5 to 4 the Supreme Court blocked a Texas Law that prohibits social media companies like ⁦Twitter⁩ from removing posts based on the views they express, i.e., protect disinformation, lies, & incitement of hatred. We're on the cusp of disaster. https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @jaspscherer Jasper Scherer on x

  Just in: The U.S. Supreme Court has halted Texas' social media law that regulates how platforms can moderate content. In a 5-4 ruling, justices Barrett, Breyer, Kavanaugh, Roberts & Sotomayor (!) voted to reinstate a lower court injunction, temporarily blocking the law. #txlege

• @adl @adl on x

  Gratified that #SCOTUS will NOT let the dangerous Texas law #HB20 go into effect, at least for the time being. This pernicious law would inhibit content moderation and allow even more hate and extremism to fester online. https://www.cnn.com/...

• @fordm Matt Ford on x

  If a genie gave me three wishes, I would ask for, in order, a dog, an affordable house, and a survey of the justices' TV and online news diets. https://twitter.com/...

• @cendemtech @cendemtech on x

  🚨 @CenDemTech welcomes Supreme Court's ruling today, blocking the Texas social media law from going into effect. We filed an amicus w/ @ncacensorship, @RSI, @WoodhullFreedom & @Wikimedia opposing it earlier this month. * Ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... * https://cdt.org…

• @ksvesq @ksvesq on x

  @steve_vladeck Did Kagan accidentally sign the wrong draft?

• @sarahjeong Sarah Jeong on x

  the legal issue at the heart of the HB 20 case is outrageously straightforward. The fact that this was 5-4 is terrifying.

• @klasfeldreports Adam Klasfeld on x

  ACLU celebrates SCOTUS ruling blocking Texas's social media law. “We commend the Supreme Court for blocking this unconstitutional law and for protecting the First Amendment rights of publishers everywhere,” they wrote. Background, @Lawcrimenews: https://lawandcrime.com/... https:…

• @walshfreedom Joe Walsh on x

  Good. But it should have been unanimous. The First Amendment still matters. https://twitter.com/...

• @davidoatkins David Atkins on x

  The idea that social media companies are like a telegraph/telephone rather than a newspaper is so ludicrous only a Republican could pretend to believe it. Social media is public communication, not private person-to-person. https://www.nytimes.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @sarahjeong Sarah Jeong on x

  repeat a lie enough times and three supreme court justices will repeat it back

• @adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x

  Big win at SCOTUS for online content moderation and healthy communities online. https://twitter.com/...

• @fordm Matt Ford on x

  I could only guess why Kagan voted with the other three, but since she didn't join Alito's opinion, I assume it wasn't for the Big Tech censorship stuff he described.

• @arossp Aaron Ross Powell on x

  Alito really is the worst Supreme Court justice. Simply a catastrophe from a constitutional standpoint. https://www.nytimes.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @chrisgeidner Chris Geidner on x

  Alito, J., acknowledging that the 5th Circuit has given no reasoning whatsoever for disturbing a district court's injunction (which kept in place the status quo), but who cares: https://twitter.com/...

• @the_hindu @the_hindu on x

  The law, formally known as HB20, forbids social media companies with at least 50 million monthly active users from acting to “censor” users based on “viewpoint,” and allows either users or the Texas attorney general to sue to enforce it. https://www.thehindu.com/...

• @chrisgeidner Chris Geidner on x

  There's much to criticize about #SCOTUS, but the fact that it's ordinary practice to block enforcement of state laws — or allow executions — without so much as a page of reasoning from the justices making that decision says a lot about the institution and how its members see it. …

• @internethippo @internethippo on x

  @fordm alito casually coming out against the entire idea of a preliminary injunction

• @caseynewton Casey Newton on x

  Infuriating dissent in the Texas social media case in which Alito et al suggest that platforms should be forced to carry speech because the internet is a special new snowflake. These guys love forgetting their precious originalism when it's convenient https://www.justsecurity.org…

• @caseynewton Casey Newton on x

  Also pretty grim to see Elena Kagan making common cause with these stooges

• @rokerglasses Joe Has Dementia on x

  So let me get this straight... Kavanaugh and Barrett voted to allow big social media companies to censor users. WT ACTUAL F is going on with these two? https://twitter.com/...

• @mchrisriley Chris Riley on x

  This is huge. Restoring the injunction of HB 20 will keep the internet from immediately becoming less safe. See R Street's blog post here on why we joined an amicus brief supporting this outcome from SCOTUS: https://www.rstreet.org/... https://twitter.com/...