Appeal Court Upholds Texas’ Law Against Social Media “Censorship.”

Conservatives have got a reprieve on the controversial social media law enacted by the state of Texas last year. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Friday ruled that social media companies removing posts based on a person’s political ideology is censorship.

The ruling came in contrast to the trial court’s judgment, which upheld the right of social media platforms to remove posts they deem wrong, and could impact the rights of tech companies to make policies pertaining to free speech in the future.

Per Washington Post, Friday’s opinion was written by Judge Andrew Stephen Oldham, who was nominated to the 5th Circuit by President Donald Trump. He was joined by Judge Edith Jones, a Reagan appointee. Judge Leslie H. Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee, concurred in part and dissenting in part.

What really separated the ruling of the trial court from the ruling of the Court of Appeal is how they interpreted the First Amendment.

The Washington Post, quoting the opinion, noted that Oldham wrote that while the First Amendment guarantees every person’s right to free speech, it doesn’t guarantee corporations the right to “muzzle speech.” In addition, he referenced the Texas law, which he wrote that it, “does not chill speech; if anything, it chills censorship.”

In the ruling, the court criticized the tech industry’s arguments against the law, saying that under the companies’ logic, “email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business.”

The 5th Circuit judges also agreed with Texas that social media companies are “common carriers,” like phone companies, that are subject to government regulations because they provide essential services.

For conservatives, who for long have claimed that their voice is being silenced under tech censorship backed by liberals, the ruling is a victory that may open the door for a potential similar interpretation of the First Amendment in other states.

Since the emergence of Donald Trump as the 45th US president in 2016, the issue of tech censorship has taken center stage in everyday discussion. It was amplified after Trump and some other members of the Republican Party were booted out of social media platforms following the Jan. 6 2021 after-election Capitol insurrection that sought to challenge Joe Biden’s win.

However, the issue will continue to remain controversial in the foreseeable future due to the contradicting views held by both conservatives and liberals. Many liberal-controlled states in the US hold claims that tech companies are making their platforms available for hate speech, cyberbullying violence and racial hatred. Thus, the states are enacting new laws to empower the companies to act decisively in curtailing the ills.

Washington Post noted that earlier this week, in response to criticism that tech platforms are enabling posts that glorify violence and hatred, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill into law that forces large social networks to make public their policies for how posts are treated.

“If the Supreme Court doesn’t weigh in, it’s going to be increasingly difficult to operate a nationwide social media company because it could be navigating state rules that differ or even conflict,” Washington Post quoted Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the United States Naval Academy as saying.

Tech organizations like Computer & Communications Industry Association (C&CIA) and NetChoice had earlier warned that the 5th Circuit’s decision runs counter to First Amendment and sets a precedent that could result in promoting harmful posts on social networks.

“Little could be more Orwellian than the government purporting to protect speech by dictating what businesses must say,” Washington Post quoted Matt Schruers, president of the C&CIA as saying. “The Texas law compels private enterprises to distribute dangerous content ranging from foreign propaganda to terrorist incitement, and places Americans at risk.”

The 5th Circuit’s ruling has triggered an array of reactions from the liberals, conservatives and the tech industry. While conservatives celebrate the decision, others have criticized it. Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, called it a “terrible opinion.”

The decision is surely going to end in a Supreme Court showdown. Carl Szabo, NetChoice vice president and general counsel, said. “We remain convinced that when the U.S. Supreme Court hears one of our cases, it will uphold the First Amendment rights of websites, platforms and apps,”

But in the Supreme Court, conservatives still have the majority.