Netchoice v. Paxton, A.G. of Texas
Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissenting from the lifting of the 5th Circuit's stay of a preliminary injunction which bars enforcement of the Texas law:
The law in question, HB20, regulates “social media platform[s]” that are “open to the public;” that “enabl[e] users to communicate with other users for the primary purpose of posting information, comments, messages, or images;” and —————— (fn1)See, e.g., E. Shearer, Pew Research Center, More Than Eight-in-TenAmericans Get News From Digital Devices (Jan. 12, 2021) 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 by which users can appeal a platform’s decision to “remove content posted by the user.” Id., at 44a. Applicants are two trade associations that represent major social media platforms covered by the statute. They challenged the constitutionality of HB20 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, contending, among other things, that the law is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment