The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a controversial Texas social media law that bars companies from removing posts based on a person’s political ideology, overturning a lower court’s decision to block the law from taking effect and likely setting up a Supreme Court showdown over the future of online speech.
The ruling could have wide-ranging effects on the future of tech regulation, as states throughout the country consider legislation similar to the Texas law.
The opinion was written by Judge Andrew Stephen Oldham, who was nominated by former president Trump. He was joined by Judge Edith Jones, a Reagan nominee. Judge Leslie H. Southwick, a George W. Bush nominee, concurred in part and dissented in part.
The judges ruled that while the First Amendment guarantees every person’s right to free speech, it doesn’t guarantee corporations the right to “muzzle speech.”
The ruling sets up a split between two circuit courts on key issues, which could potentially need to be resolved by the Supreme Court. Earlier this year, the 11th Circuit Court blocked major provisions of a social media that had been passed by Florida’s Republican-led legislature.
Tech industry representatives said they disagreed with the decision, and said that they are evaluating options for appeal.
“Little could be more Orwellian than the government purporting to protect speech by dictating what businesses must say,” said Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which had challenged the Texas law. “The Texas law compels private enterprises to distribute dangerous content ranging from foreign propaganda to terrorist incitement, and places Americans at risk.”
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Check the wapo comments if you want to lose brain cells
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Not a single person explaining how the law should be unconstitutional, just that they don't like it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Idk, unless they define social media as common carriers the law does not make much sense and is likely a violation of the 1st amendment.
I personally think social media SHOULD be defined as such but I doubt the SC will.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That’s how you know it’s fakeshill
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
When have I ever been wrong?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You play League
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The law doesn't restrict speech though
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Essentially by forcing a platform to host something you are restricting their speech.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Hoooly shit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's literally how it works lmao.
It's been in court numerous times.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
OMG he responded
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Compelled speech is not restricted speech
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speech#:~:text=The%20compelled%20speech%20doctrine%20sets,group%20to%20support%20certain%20expression.
Please stop. It's a 1st amendment violation.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This doesn't match my interpretation of the first amendment, so it is false. Texas agrees
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Texas is a 3rd world state with elected politicians wasting tax dollars to pander to the dumbest americans in the country.
What texas thinks does not matter.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context