Texas Cites Clarence Thomas to Defend Its Social Media Law


Florida law remains blocked and the state is very interested in the outcome of the Battle of Texas. Florida filed a Supreme Court writ in support of Texas on Wednesday, and the Florida document was co-signed by 11 other states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and North Carolina. South.

“Friendly states have a strong interest in defending the regulatory authority of sovereign states in this area,” the Florida brief said. “In fact, many states have enacted, or are considering, laws similar to the laws of Texas and Florida, and believe that the Fifth Circuit was correct in suspending the district court’s requirement pending the appeal “.

Texas law applies to social media platforms with “more than 50 million active users in the United States in a single month.” It says that a “social media platform cannot censor a user” based on the user’s “point of view” and defines “censoring” as “blocking, banning, removing, de-platforming, monetizing, disabling, restricting, denying” equal access to or visibility of, or otherwise discriminate against, the expression “. By law, users or the Texas Attorney General can sue platforms that violate the ban.

The first amendment to the Texas claims does not apply

Texas’s writ argues that its law prohibiting moderation based on “point of view” does not violate the First Amendment because it “regulates conduct, does not specifically address the discriminatory refusal of platforms to offer, or discriminatory reduction of customer service, based on the point of view, the First Amendment generally does not preclude restrictions on “conduct”, although such restrictions[e] incidental charges on speech. ‘ Because the Hosting Rule only requires platforms to serve customers in a non-discriminatory manner, it is “a perfectly legitimate thing for the government to do,” even if the service offered by the platforms is to “host the discourse of a another person “.

Texas said social media cannot rely on the right to “editorial discretion” because “platforms have spent years declining responsibility or editorial control over the content generated by their users.” Texas also argued that “an entity does not exercise ‘editorial discretion’ by controlling communications between third parties. Even if platforms exercised some degree of editorial discretion in hosting other people’s speech, they would not yet have the right to ‘discretion’. editorial ‘to be free. of a regulation that limits how they control the communication of users between them “. Social platforms “were created for the specific purpose of hosting third-party speeches and are ‘open to the public to come and go as they please,'” Texas wrote.

Texas said its case is backed by the Supreme Court PruneYard decision involving a mall banning visitors from engaging in expressive activities not directly related to [the mall’s] commercial purposes “, which violated a California law that prohibits malls from infringing on visitors'” right to speak and request “rights. Texas continued:

This Court rejected the mall’s argument that it enjoyed a “First Amendment right not to be compelled by the State to use [its] This Court concluded that the California housing requirement did not infringe the mall’s speaking rights for three reasons. First, because the mall was “open to the public to come and go as they please.” no reasonable spectator would have associated the views of a particular speaker with those of the mall itself. Second, California did not require the mall to host a “specific message”; instead, state law applied equally to all potential speakers and messages. Third, The Mall remained free to “expressly deny any connection to” a disadvantaged speaker or message …



Source link

Leave a Reply