A US federal appeals court upholds the Texas social media content moderation law, lifting an injunction that blocked it and remanding it back to the lower court
Justice Department Appeals Parts of Judge's Ruling on Documents Seized at Trump's Mar-a-Lago David McCabe / New York Times : A federal court clears the way for a Texas social media law. Rebecca Kern / Politico : 5th Circuit upholds Texas law forbidding social media ‘censorship’ — again Brent Kendall / Wall Street Journal : Appeals Court Upholds Texas Law Regulating Social-Media Platforms Nick Heer / Pixel Envy : ‘The Most Angrily Incoherent First Amendment Decision’ Cmackenzie / Chamber of Progress : Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Law Banning Content Moderation Paul J. Weber / Associated Press : Court rules in favor of Texas law on social media regulation Mark Kolakowski / Investopedia : Texas Anti-Censorship Law Targets Meta (FB), Alphabet (GOOGL), Twitter (TWTR) Jason Aycock / Seeking Alpha : Appeals court upholds Texas' law restricting social content moderation Heather Greenfield / CCIA : Appeals Court In Texas Social Media Case Says Statute May Go Into Effect Quinta Jurecic / Lawfare : Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Social Media Law Shiva Stella / Public Knowledge : Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Decision Upholding Texas Social Media Law Jeopardizes Free ExpressionBrian Fung / CNN : Federal appeals court upholds controversial Texas social media law restricting content moderation Electronic Frontier Foundation : EFF to Supreme Court: Put Texas Social Media Law Back on Hold Adam Klasfeld / Law & Crime : Fifth Circuit Upholds Controversial Texas Social Media Law, Saying Corporations Don't Have ‘Freewheeling Right to Censor’ Krista Chavez / NetChoice : NetChoice Disappointed on Fifth Circuit Ruling in NetChoice & CCIA v. PaxtonRebecca Klar / The Hill : Appeals court upholds controversial Texas social media law Ben Brody / Protocol : Appeals court backs Texas' social media must-carry law (again) Tweets: Attorney General Ken Paxton / @kenpaxtontx : BREAKING: I just secured a MASSIVE VICTORY for the Constitution & Free Speech in fed court: #BigTech CANNOT censor the political voices of ANY Texan! The 5th Circuit “reject[s] the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. https://twitter.com/... Alex Wild / @myrmecos : Texas's bizarre social media law- the one that blocks content moderation- only applies to sites with more than 50 million active users. Wonder if Twitter is close enough to that threshold to get serious about the troll farm purges this site so desperately needs. @popehat : @mmasnick It really is the most angrily incoherent First Amendment decision I think I've ever read. Corbin K. Barthold / @corbinkbarthold : Judge Edith Jones remains undefeated. It's not editorial control, guys. It's algorithmic magic. https://twitter.com/... Brendan Carr / @brendancarrfcc : NEW: Big court win in the effort to end Big Tech's unchecked censorship. Fifth Circuit rejects a First Amendment challenge to the Texas social media law. “Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.” https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/... @berinszoka : Even for such a badly reasoned opinion, this is just embarrassing. The court is saying that the platforms getting Section 230 protection against liability somehow means they don't have First Amendment rights Literally Day One of Law School: statutes can't trump the Constitution https://twitter.com/...J. Nathan Matias / @natematias : Current feels: Watching a judge describe my research area as “algorithmic magic” motivates me to do the science. https://twitter.com/... Preston Park / @pjparkjd : @misterchambo ... The full opinion is worth the read. 🤠 See the 5th Circuit throwing shade at the 11th. 🤠 Confirm that big tech uses § 230 as a license to slander by curation. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/ ... https://twitter.com/... Dare Obasanjo / @carnage4life : A ruling arguing that websites are obligated to carry your message once you post it online can't backfire, right? https://www.reuters.com/... Kari Lake / @karilake : Huge news! Thank you, @KenPaxtonTX and for taking up this fight to help restore Free Speech. https://twitter.com/... Poppy Harlow / @poppyharlowcnn : Watch this case: the 5th Circuit / 11th Circuit split makes this a very likely case to head to the Supreme Court — where decades of 1st Amendment precedent will be tested. @b_fung https://www.cnn.com/... @berinszoka : Today's decision lets the Texas law go into effect Or, more precisely, it removes the district court's injunction, thus forcing the platforms to ask either the full Fifth Circuit en banc or SCOTUS to review the law on an emergency basis and stay its enforcement in the meantime https://twitter.com/... Jeff Kemp / @jkempcpa : It really is. I really really really have tried to defend our legal system and our judges but you just can't - in this face of stuff like this. It's GOP homer Justice. They are political activists. Not judges. https://twitter.com/... @kt_so_it_goes : wild how the “we don't want to be europe” people just continue to force all the shittiest features of europe on us https://twitter.com/... Steve Vladeck / @steve_vladeck : The good news is that it's not long for this world. #SCOTUS has already blocked #HB20, and the circuit split with the 11th Circuit will almost surely be resolved in the latter's favor. The bad news is that it's not an outlier; it's emblematic of what this court does every day. https://twitter.com/... @leftynavyseal : WAPO: In unprecedented deprivation of free speech, 5th Circuit crazies hold that Texas law depriving social media companies of the right to moderate content is valid. The law is that your use of social media is bound by the user contract, not the Constitution. Batshit crazy. Alejandra Caraballo / @esqueer_ : “It is my political view that trans people are groomers sexualizing children and they should be rounded up and executed.” Shocking? Twitter would be unable to remove this statement under Texas' social media law that the 5th Circuit put back into effect today. @berinszoka : The court's conclusion rests on the idea that no one could reasonably connect the platform to the speech they carry Tell that to Disney, which decided not to buy Twitter in 2016 because of, as its then-CEO put it, “all the hate speech” https://insidethemagic.net/... https://twitter.com/... @berinszoka : And in Halleck (2019), Judge Kavanaugh, writing for the conservative majority, was very clear: “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.” Geoffrey Manne / @geoffmanne : This is the key error. Just b/c the majority of content users post doesn't offend the community doesn't mean platforms can't exercise editorial discretion over *any* content. On this logic, the more cohesive the community, the better the editorial judgment, the less 1A protection https://twitter.com/... @berinszoka : lol no The Packingham Court referred to tech companies as “town squares” in a purely colloquial sense. The case involved a state law compelling tech companies not to host sex offenders, so the Court didn't say anything about whether they were public fora absent such compulsion https://twitter.com/... @berinszoka : The court refused to strike down the TX law as facially unconstitutional because of overbreadth, suggesting that it would have to be challenged as to specific applications Just like Florida's 1903 must-carry mandate was unconstitutional as applied to all newspapers all the time? https://twitter.com/... Kevin S. Ford / @writerkevin : @JameelJaffer 1/2: The court's use of the word “platforms” very purposefully obscures the fact that Twitter, Facebook, et al. are Web sites. Regardless of how many employees or offices they have around the world, they remain, at heart, dorm-room creations - NOT “communication firms”. Jameel Jaffer / @jameeljaffer : The problem with this argument is that you can't just carve “editorial judgment” out of the First Amendment by recasting it as “censorship.” You need at the very least to offer a principle that distinguishes one from the other. No such principle is offered here. https://twitter.com/... Jameel Jaffer / @jameeljaffer : Overall, this is a bad opinion. The TX law presents some very difficult questions, but simply relabeling “editorial judgment” as “censorship” doesn't help us answer them. Let's hope SCOTUS takes these questions more seriously. I assume that's where this case is going next. https://twitter.com/... David Kaye / @davidakaye : same people asserting that platforms cannot ‘censor’ speech are demanding that libraries must censor books. 🙃 Meme BastardCharles Khan / @mask_bastard : Every edgy comedian is about to move to Texas. https://twitter.com/... Monica Matthews On Air / @monicaonairtalk : When you ask me how you take your country back- this type of commitment to the US Constitution, on a state level, is how. (And repentance & prayer) https://twitter.com/... @basedkarbon : Set your VPN to Texas and you can say whatever you want on twitter https://twitter.com/... Hans Mahncke / @hansmahncke : This part is so good. Big Tech can't justify their censorship regime by claiming free speech rights while at the same time also claiming Section 230 protections. You can't be a publisher while also claiming not to be a publisher. Beautiful. https://techfreedom.org/... https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/... Mike Masnick / @mmasnick : Hilariously, just after tweeting this nonsense, Paxton retweeted a claim about how he was trying to stop “activist judges.” Anyway, congrats to Paxton for saying that companies no longer have free speech rights. Can't see how that might backfire at all, no. https://twitter.com/... Eva / @evacide : Is Texas' social media law an absolute disaster for content moderation? Yes. Yes it is. https://www.eff.org/... Michael Petricone / @mpetricone : This is really bad. Stopping platforms from removing “viewpoint based” expression protects racists and nazis, and overrules decades or precedent. Great day for hate speakers, a terrible day for #1A and the US constitution. https://www.politico.com/... Radley Balko / @radleybalko : Holy shit, this is bad. They just upheld Texas' awful social media law. Oldham, Southwick, and Jones is a hell of a trio. https://twitter.com/... Matt Kilboy / @mattkilboy : This ruling cannot be allowed to stand. The party of “small government” continues to overstep its boundaries when it's convenient to them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... David Roth / @rothforidaho : Just to be clear this ruling means that companies can no longer choose how to operate their business they cannot make decisions based on profitability or user safety. They are restricted from running their business how they see fit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Adam Kovacevich / @adamkovac : This ⤵️ is the key news from today's ruling: Texas' anti-content moderation law is now in effect. Likely next steps: - NetChoice/CCIA files emergency injunction req to Alito - Alito can rule or refer to whole court (as he did with injunction) https://twitter.com/... Casey Mattox / @caseymattox_ : So, on the NetChoice decision, lots more to say - but on the 2nd page, there's just no universe in which this is remotely true. If you think Twitter is a “monopolist” of the “modern public square” you need to touch a lot of grass. Or lay off a lot of it. Either way. https://twitter.com/... Eva / @evacide : The Fifth Circuit has published its opinion upholding HB 20 in Texas and everyone who cares about content moderation is going to be spending the weekend explaining why this is extremely bad: https://techfreedom.org/... Mike Masnick / @mmasnick : The 5th Circuit has completely upended and rewritten the 1st Amendment. This is an astoundingly stupid ruling. https://twitter.com/... See also Mediagazer
BREAKING: I just secured a MASSIVE VICTORY for the Constitution & Free Speech in fed court: #BigTech CANNOT censor the political voices of ANY Texan! The 5th Circuit “reject[s] the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. https:/…
NEW: Big court win in the effort to end Big Tech's unchecked censorship. Fifth Circuit rejects a First Amendment challenge to the Texas social media law. “Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.” https://twi…
Today's decision lets the Texas law go into effect Or, more precisely, it removes the district court's injunction, thus forcing the platforms to ask either the full Fifth Circuit en banc or SCOTUS to review the law on an emergency basis and stay its enforcement in the meantime ht…
lol no The Packingham Court referred to tech companies as “town squares” in a purely colloquial sense. The case involved a state law compelling tech companies not to host sex offenders, so the Court didn't say anything about whether they were public fora absent such compulsion ht…
The Fifth Circuit has published its opinion upholding HB 20 in Texas and everyone who cares about content moderation is going to be spending the weekend explaining why this is extremely bad: https://techfreedom.org/...
This is really bad. Stopping platforms from removing “viewpoint based” expression protects racists and nazis, and overrules decades or precedent. Great day for hate speakers, a terrible day for #1A and the US constitution. https://www.politico.com/...
The court refused to strike down the TX law as facially unconstitutional because of overbreadth, suggesting that it would have to be challenged as to specific applications Just like Florida's 1903 must-carry mandate was unconstitutional as applied to all newspapers all the time? …
And in Halleck (2019), Judge Kavanaugh, writing for the conservative majority, was very clear: “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”
It really is. I really really really have tried to defend our legal system and our judges but you just can't - in this face of stuff like this. It's GOP homer Justice. They are political activists. Not judges. https://twitter.com/...
The court's conclusion rests on the idea that no one could reasonably connect the platform to the speech they carry Tell that to Disney, which decided not to buy Twitter in 2016 because of, as its then-CEO put it, “all the hate speech” https://insidethemagic.net/... https://twitt…
This ⤵️ is the key news from today's ruling: Texas' anti-content moderation law is now in effect. Likely next steps: - NetChoice/CCIA files emergency injunction req to Alito - Alito can rule or refer to whole court (as he did with injunction) https://twitter.com/...
This part is so good. Big Tech can't justify their censorship regime by claiming free speech rights while at the same time also claiming Section 230 protections. You can't be a publisher while also claiming not to be a publisher. Beautiful. https://techfreedom.org/... https://twi…
@JameelJaffer 1/2: The court's use of the word “platforms” very purposefully obscures the fact that Twitter, Facebook, et al. are Web sites. Regardless of how many employees or offices they have around the world, they remain, at heart, dorm-room creations - NOT “communication fir…
This ruling cannot be allowed to stand. The party of “small government” continues to overstep its boundaries when it's convenient to them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
Just to be clear this ruling means that companies can no longer choose how to operate their business they cannot make decisions based on profitability or user safety. They are restricted from running their business how they see fit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
So, on the NetChoice decision, lots more to say - but on the 2nd page, there's just no universe in which this is remotely true. If you think Twitter is a “monopolist” of the “modern public square” you need to touch a lot of grass. Or lay off a lot of it. Either way. https://twitt…
Even for such a badly reasoned opinion, this is just embarrassing. The court is saying that the platforms getting Section 230 protection against liability somehow means they don't have First Amendment rights Literally Day One of Law School: statutes can't trump the Constitution h…
Hilariously, just after tweeting this nonsense, Paxton retweeted a claim about how he was trying to stop “activist judges.” Anyway, congrats to Paxton for saying that companies no longer have free speech rights. Can't see how that might backfire at all, no. https://twitter.com/..…
This is the key error. Just b/c the majority of content users post doesn't offend the community doesn't mean platforms can't exercise editorial discretion over *any* content. On this logic, the more cohesive the community, the better the editorial judgment, the less 1A protection…
The problem with this argument is that you can't just carve “editorial judgment” out of the First Amendment by recasting it as “censorship.” You need at the very least to offer a principle that distinguishes one from the other. No such principle is offered here. https://twitter.c…
Overall, this is a bad opinion. The TX law presents some very difficult questions, but simply relabeling “editorial judgment” as “censorship” doesn't help us answer them. Let's hope SCOTUS takes these questions more seriously. I assume that's where this case is going next. https:…
When you ask me how you take your country back- this type of commitment to the US Constitution, on a state level, is how. (And repentance & prayer) https://twitter.com/...
The good news is that it's not long for this world. #SCOTUS has already blocked #HB20, and the circuit split with the 11th Circuit will almost surely be resolved in the latter's favor. The bad news is that it's not an outlier; it's emblematic of what this court does every day. ht…
WAPO: In unprecedented deprivation of free speech, 5th Circuit crazies hold that Texas law depriving social media companies of the right to moderate content is valid. The law is that your use of social media is bound by the user contract, not the Constitution. Batshit crazy.
“It is my political view that trans people are groomers sexualizing children and they should be rounded up and executed.” Shocking? Twitter would be unable to remove this statement under Texas' social media law that the 5th Circuit put back into effect today.
As ever, @mmasnick explains it all, even when what he has to explain is utter idiocy. 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate https://www.techdirt.com/... via @Techdirt
Under *current* law in several states, government can now compel any speech it wants on private property. The First Amendment only limits state power to remove speech, while leaving open the power of the state to compel publishers to speak. https://www.techdirt.com/...
Grateful that, per usual, @mmasnick was able to quickly get some smart analysis together of this catastrophically bad 5th Circuit ruling. Really really dangerous development for the First Amendment, and it's hard to see how it gets better https://www.techdirt.com/...
Under this court ruling, US states can now compel speech. The “arguments sound much more like the arguments made by ignorant trolls... than anyone with any knowledge or experience with 1st Amendment law.” Good @mmasnick write-up of this bananas decision. https://www.techdirt.com/…
If you're looking for a good overview of just how practically and legally bonkers yesterday's Fifth Circuit ruling upholding Texas's ban on content moderation by large social media platforms truly is, @mmasnick has you covered over at @techdirt: https://www.techdirt.com/...
Watch this case: the 5th Circuit / 11th Circuit split makes this a very likely case to head to the Supreme Court — where decades of 1st Amendment precedent will be tested. @b_fung https://www.cnn.com/...