Amici Blast Texas Social Media Law
A Texas law regulating social media for perceived political censorship “is an unconstitutional restraint on freedom of expression” that “violates social media platforms’ First Amendment rights by compelling speech and restricting platforms’ editorial discretion,” nonprofit IP Justice said Thursday. The…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
group supported tech group challengers in a Thursday amicus brief at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in case 21-51178 (see 2204040039). The law’s disclosure requirement is unfairly burdensome and enforcement of the law “will bring disastrous effects on Texas and global Internet freedom,” it said. The Texas law “is doomed” under a usual First Amendment analysis, so Texas tried “to insulate its new law” by calling social media platforms common carriers,” said TechFreedom in a Friday amicus brief. “But slapping the label ‘common carrier’ on something doesn’t make it so.” Electronic Frontier Foundation and other civil liberties groups wrote, “Inconsistent and opaque private content moderation is a problem for users. But it is one best addressed through self-regulation and regulation that doesn’t touch or retaliate against the editorial process.” Another amici group including TechNet and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation said the state made its law “not out of unwavering attachment to principles of free speech, but because Texas officials wished to promote their own favored viewpoints through a few specific Providers." Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute said the law’s “must-carry provision is unconstitutional,” but the court “should uphold the disclosure provisions if it determines that they are not unjustified and do not impose an undue burden on speech.” Oral argument is scheduled May 9.