The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday barred the entry into force of a law passed in the state of Texas that vetoes the prerogative of social media platforms to suspend posts from their users based on the content of publications.
The decision responds to requests from groups linked to so-called big techs, who argue that the project, backed by Republicans, has the potential to transform platforms into free territory for communication “as vile as one can imagine”, violating the rights of freedom of expression.
Supreme Court justices ruled, by 5 votes to 4, in favor of NetChoice, an industry association that fights critics of technology companies, and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which has among its members Facebook (controlled by Meta), Twitter and YouTube (from Google).
This Tuesday’s measure did not result from an analysis of the legality of the text, but it suspends its entry into force, authorized by a lower court, until a final judgment by the court.
The Texas law was signed into law last year by Republican Governor Greg Abbott. So-called big techs are the target of frequent criticism from party-linked politicians and conservative figures, who accuse companies of censoring their views.
One of the examples cited is the banning of former US President Donald Trump from networks such as Twitter, due to the “risk of incitement to violence”. The measure was taken after supporters of the politician, inspired by him, invaded the US Congress on January 6, 2021, to try to forcibly stop the session that certified Joe Biden’s victory.
Texas law, formally known as HB20, prohibits social media companies with at least 50 million monthly active users from taking action to censor users based on their views. In practice, it would affect networks such as Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok, Twitter, Vimeo and YouTube.
In signing the bill last September, Abbott claimed there was a “dangerous move by some social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values.” “This is wrong and we will not allow it to happen in Texas,” the Republican said.
Industry groups, for their part, countered the criticism and claimed that restricting the companies’ editorial control “would compel platforms to disseminate all sorts of objectionable viewpoints—among them Russian propaganda conveying the ideas that the invasion of Ukraine is justified”.
The platforms also accused what has been called discrimination against big tech, pointing to the cut-off of user volume defined by the project. In the eyes of the companies, this protects popular media among conservatives, such as Parler, Gettr and Truth Social, just launched by Trump himself. The former president recently said he does not intend to return to Twitter, even with the possible restitution of his account cited by businessman Elon Musk, who seeks to buy the site.
According to the companies, the Texan law would allow “neo-Nazi and terrorist discourse, hostile propaganda from foreign governments and countless other negative examples” to flourish. “The decision [da Suprema Corte] means that US private companies will have the opportunity to be heard in court before being forced to disseminate vile, abusive or extremist content under this law,” said Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
The American Judiciary, in different instances, analyzes similar projects, one of them approved in Florida, a state also governed by a Republican.
Of the four Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of the Texan bill, three issued a statement justifying their position — conservatives Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch; the other vote was by progressive Elena Kagan, who did not subscribe to the communiqué, but did not publish one of her own.
“It is not obvious that existing precedents, which predate the internet age, should apply to large social media companies,” the note reads. Citing an intrusion on Texas sovereignty, Alito argued that it would be premature for the Supreme Court to intervene in litigation over “a groundbreaking Texas law that addresses the power of these dominant corporations to shape public discussion of important issues.”
