[tomder55]

This application concerns issues of great importance thatwill plainly merit this Court’s review. Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate witheach other and obtain news.1 At issue is a ground-breaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day. The law in question, HB20, regulates “social media platform[s]” that are “open to the public;” that “enabl[e] usersto communicate with other users for the primary purpose ofposting information, comments, messages, or images;” and that have at least “50 million active users in the United States in a calendar month.” App. to Application 39a–41a(App.). Section 7 of HB20 prohibits these platforms from “censor[ing]” users based on viewpoint, and §2 requires covered platforms to disclose certain information about their business practices, including an “acceptable use policy” and “a biannual transparency report.” Id., at 39a–46a, 48a– 52a. These platforms must also establish procedures bywhich users can appeal a platform’s decision to “remove content posted by the user.” Id., at 44a.

21A720 Netchoice, LLC v. Paxton (05/31/2022) (supremecourt.gov)

87(2) HB 20 - Senate Committee Report version - Bill Text (texas.gov)

HB 20 also bars platforms from placing warning labels on users’ posts to inform viewers that they contain objectionable content.

The law was shut down by the lower courts, then reinstated in appeal, then handed off to SCOTUS. SCOTUS refused to reinstate the law; but will likely hear the case in the fall.

Twitter says that the 1st Amendment only applies to the government. “Social media platforms are internet websites that exercise editorial discretion over what content they disseminate and how such content is displayed to users.”

Supreme-Court-Vacatur-Application17.pdf (netchoice.org)

Sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects social media platforms from the First Amendment by saying they aren’t really “publishers”. They are conduit through which posts ,tweets, etc. flow. That makes them more like utilities like telephone companies that just carry the messages ;not arbiters of what gets posted .Imagine the phone company censoring a phone conversation. That is what they want.


"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" In other words, host sites are protected against laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

They can't have it both ways . If they want to be censors then they are in fact publishers of the content . If they want to claim they are not publishers then they are common carriers and do not have a right to censor. Choose one . That is what Justice Alito said in his dissent of the court's decision to stay HB20 .

Microsoft Word - 1A0720S.docx (documentcloud.org)

The major platforms have egregiously violated the protection by being censors against a particular political viewpoint.
“When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.”

Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia | The First Amendment Encyclopedia (mtsu.edu)

It is simple really .......if Twitter, Fakebook et al want to be censors, they should waive Sec 230 protections and admit they are publishers of content . Be warned then that if that is the road they want then they will have to shed any pretext of claiming to be the 21st century Town Square .

Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky said that if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. I would add without fear of censorship. ("The Case for Democracy" by Natan Sharansky)