District Court Blocks Texas's Social Media Statute

Haven't had a chance to read it yet, and off to get a long overdue haircut; but I thought I'd note it and link to the opinion, Netchoice LLC v. Paxton.

Comments

[Ben_]

It would be a lot easier for the states to ban these networks from all state government computers and state government computer networks. And ban any official government, city, or public school business from being conducted on platforms that censor.

When Facebook can’t be accessed at any public college or used by any public school and can’t get any government cooperation of any kind to build a data center or otherwise conduct any operations in Texas, Facebook might decide it doesn’t need to censor at that cost. Same for Google.

[Ben_]

And if you want these guys to disclose info about their censorship, make it a requirement for employing people in the state or for permitting. All employers or any business seeking a permit must answer questions like "does your business interact with more than 50 million Americans in one month? If yes … [followup questions that eventually ask about censoring Texans]. "

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside any legal problems with your proposal, the state banning government employees from using search engines might not quite work out as well as you think.

And somehow I don't think Facebook is going to buckle and start hosting neo-Nazi speech just so that a DMV employee in Texas can check his Facebook on his computer during his lunch break.

[Ben_]

You don’t understand any part of the issue. That’s fine. Just keep babbling complete nonsense about bogeymen.

[IPLawyer]

"When Facebook can’t be accessed at any public college or used by any public school and can’t get any government cooperation of any kind to build a data center or otherwise conduct any operations in Texas, Facebook might decide it doesn’t need to censor at that cost. Same for Google."

You're a fucking moron.

[Ben_]

You continue to be as insightful as always.

Name-callers signal to everyone that they’re too dumb to make an argument.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I don't think Facebook is going to buckle and start hosting neo-Nazi speech

It's a little early in the day for Godwin, isn't it?

[Ed Grinberg]

No, you don't understand: you are not supposed to point out leftists doing something Nazi-like; saying that about conservatives is A-OK!

[David Nieporent]

No. There is no "very unpalatable speech" exception to the first amendment. Any law or policy that prohibits or penalizes "censorship" by platforms applies to neo-Nazis as much as it applies to anyone else.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No. There is no "very unpalatable speech" exception to the first amendment. Any law or policy that prohibits or penalizes "censorship" by platforms applies to neo-Nazis as much as it applies to anyone else.

Which, of course, is not a requirement that you go right to insinuating that someone is championing {insert-favorite-nazi-stuff-here}.

[David Nieporent]

I insinuated no such thing. Ben_ is an idiot, but I have no reason to think he's a neo-Nazi. But we know that there are neo-Nazis out there on social media, and we know that social media sites block them as much as feasible because it's not a viable business model to have them around. And if Ben's proposal had the effect that he thinks it would, it would result in them sticking around.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I insinuated no such thing.

Of course you did.

Ben_ is an idiot, but I have no reason to think he's a neo-Nazi.

And yet you chose them as the group you're suggesting he thinks will be published by FB. And you did so because you were also implying...inaccurately...that the TX legislation in question (which I opposed, btw) requires media sites to allow those adhering to repugnant ideologies to specifically post content that calls for violence or other criminal actions against people based on their membership in one or more group (it does not). Or were you referring to neo-Nazis exchanging strudel recipes and the like?

[David Nieporent]

And yet you chose them as the group you're suggesting he thinks will be published by FB.

Nope. I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm saying that's not the group he's thinking of — he's thinking of Trumpkins — but it's a group that actually would benefit from his proposal, if its coercive approach worked the way he hoped it would.

And you did so because you were also implying...inaccurately...that the TX legislation in question (which I opposed, btw) requires media sites to allow those adhering to repugnant ideologies to specifically post content that calls for violence or other criminal actions against people based on their membership in one or more group (it does not).

You're misunderstanding the flow of this discussion; I was talking about Ben_'s proposal, not the Texas law.

That having been said, you're mistaken about the Texas law. It prohibits "censorship" of any user based on viewpoint. It carves out an exception for "unlawful expression, including expression that unlawfully harasses individuals or unlawfully incites violence." (Emphasis added.) But Brandenburg says that almost any call for violence or other criminal actions is constitutionally protected. And of course one could post Mein Kampf or the Turner Diaries or Camp of the Saints online 100% lawfully. Which means under the Texas law, people who post those can't be "censored" in any way.

[David Nieporent]

Well, that ruling was about as surprising as sunrise in the morning. The arguments in favor of the law's constitutionality were borderline frivolous, and the Florida ruling foreshadowed this one.

[John F. Carr]

"In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege the 'already incurred costs and will continue to divert their finite resources—money, staff, and time and attention—away from other pressing issues facing their members to address compliance with and the implications of H.B. 20 for Internet companies.'"

While even a very small burden can grant standing, I think the judge should have ordered the plaintiff's attorneys beheaded on the spot for being overdramatic. The Googles and the Facebooks of the world are not incapable of paying attention to "pressing issues" because of the distraction of this Texas law.

This part was entertaining:

"This Court starts from the premise that social media platforms are not common carriers.³
³ HB 20’s pronouncement that social media platforms are common carriers, Tex. H.B. No. 20, 87th Leg., 2nd Sess. § 1(4) (2021), does not impact this Court’s legal analysis."

In considering whether to issue an injunction, the judge also concluded that Silicon Valley's censorship made the world a better place: "In this case, content moderation and curation will benefit users and the public by reducing harmful content and providing a safe, useful service."

[Rossami]

Hmmm... On what basis did the court conclude that as a legal matter, social media platforms are not common carriers? Isn't that a pretty arbitrary distinction that's within the legislature's right to unilaterally decide?

[David Nieporent]

No.

[David Nieporent]

Either the first amendment forbids the government from forcing these companies to engage in compelled speech or it doesn't. If the 1A doesn't forbid that, then whether they're common carriers is irrelevant. If the 1A does forbid that, then the legislature cannot get around that with a magic incantation, whether it's Wingardium Leviosa or Common Carrier.

[JoeM64]

Should have known it was from Robert Pitman.

SMH.