House Bill (HB) 20, authored by Rep. Briscoe Cain (R-Deer Park) and sponsored by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), would have prohibited social media platforms with more than 50 million users from censoring individuals based on their views and would have required increased transparency.
Pitman ordered a temporary injunction against HB 20 in a 30-page order, concluding that, “content moderation and curation will benefit users and the public by reducing harmful content and providing a safe, useful service.”
The judge was favorable toward the arguments from the trade associations representing major social media platforms, who contended that instead of protecting the free speech rights of individuals, HB 20 infringed upon the First Amendment rights of the companies to regulate what content is shared on their platforms.
“This Court is convinced that social media platforms, or at least those covered by HB 20, curate both users and content to convey a message about the type of community the platform seeks to foster and, as such, exercise editorial discretion over their platform’s content,” wrote Pitman.
Starting “from the premise that social media platforms are not common carriers,” Pitman contends that the “editorial discretion” exercised by the companies is protected by the First Amendment.
Steve DelBianco, the president of NetChoice who advocated against the bill throughout the legislative process, applauded Pitman’s decision in a press release.
“HB 20 would unleash a tidal wave of offensive content and hate speech crashing onto users, creators, and advertisers,” said DelBianco. “Thanks to the decision made today, social media can continue providing high-quality services to Americans while simultaneously keeping them safe from irresponsible users and offensive content.”
A recent report published by NetChoice shows that nearly six billion posts were removed by social media platforms in the latter half of 2020, which included 2.9 billion posts labeled as “spam,” 66 million as “hateful content,” 52 million as “child sexual exploitation,” 45 million as “graphic violence,” and 25 million as “abuse or harassment.”
Proponents of the legislation, such as Hughes, agree that sites need to moderate content that is graphically violent or pornographic but say that the platforms should not censor political or religious views.
At the time of publishing, Attorney General Ken Paxton had not yet released any statement regarding the court order or Texas’ response.
“I have not read the judge’s order,” Cain, the bill’s author, told The Texan. “Nor have I ever heard from the attorney general’s office about the lawsuit.”
Disclosure: Unlike almost every other media outlet, The Texan is not beholden to any special interests, does not apply for any type of state or federal funding, and relies exclusively on its readers for financial support. If you’d like to become one of the people we’re financially accountable to, click here to subscribe.
Daniel Friend is the Marketing and Media Manager for The Texan. After graduating with a double-major in Political Science and Humanities, he wrote for The Texan as a reporter through June 2022. In his spare time, you're likely to find him working on The Testimony of Calvin Lewis, an Abolition of Man-inspired novel and theatrical podcast.