207
185 shares, 207 points


from the nicely-done dept

Back in June we reported on how Florida’s social media moderation invoice was tossed out as unconstitutional in a Florida court docket. The ruling itself was slightly bit bizarre, however a simple name on 1st Amendment grounds. It was maybe not shocking, however nonetheless silly, to see Texas instantly step up and suggest its personal model of such a invoice, which was signed in September. We once more predicted {that a} court docket would shortly toss it out as unconstitutional.

And that is precisely what has occurred.

There was some whispering and issues that Texas’ legislation was craftier than the Florida legislation, and elements of it would survive, however, nope. And this ruling is definitely extra thorough, and extra clear than the marginally jumbled Florida ruling. It’s chock full of excellent quotes. The solely factor that sucks about this ruling, truthfully, is that Texas is unquestionably going to enchantment it to the fifth Circuit court docket of appeals and the fifth Circuit is the craziest of Circuits and appears, by far, the most certainly to disregard the fundamental 1st Amendment ideas in favor of some bizarre Trumpist political grandstanding.

However, for this temporary shining second, let’s have fun a great, clear ruling that vindicates all of the factors many people have been making about simply how batshit loopy the Texas legislation was, and the way it was so blatantly an infringement on the first Amendment rights of internet sites. There are a bunch of pages wasted on proving that the commerce teams who introduced the lawsuit have standing, which are not price rehashing right here past saying that, sure, commerce teams for web firms have the standing to problem this legislation.

From there, the ruling will get right down to the guts of the matter, and it is fairly straight ahead. Content moderation is identical factor as editorial discretion and that is clearly protected by the first Amendment.

Social Media Platforms Exercise Editorial Discretion Protected by the First
Amendment

Judge Robert Pitman cites all the important thing instances right here — Reno v. ACLU (which tossed out all the CDA — minus Section 230 — as unconstitutional, but in addition clearly established that the first Amendment applies to the web), Sorrell v. IMS Health (establishing that the dissemination of data is speech) and, maybe most significantly, Manhattan Cmty. Access v. Halleck, the Justice Brett Kavanaugh-authored ruling we have highlighted many instances for making it fairly clear that personal web firms are free to reasonable nevertheless they see match. It additionally cites the important thing case that was instrumental to the ruling in Florida: Miami Herald v. Tornillo, which made clear the first Amendment protections for editorial discretion:

Social media platforms have a First Amendment proper to reasonable content material disseminated on
their platforms. See Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1932 (2019) (recognizing
that “sure non-public entities[] have rights to train editorial management over speech and audio system on
their properties or platforms”). Three Supreme Court instances present steering. First, in Tornillo, the
Court struck down a Florida statute that required newspapers to print a candidate’s reply if a
newspaper assailed her character or official document, a “right of reply” statute. 418 U.S. at 243. In
1974, when the opinion was launched, the Court famous there had been a “communications
revolution” together with that “[n]ewspapers have grow to be huge enterprise . . . [with] [c]hains of
newspapers, nationwide newspapers, nationwide wire and information companies, and one-newspaper cities [being]
the dominant options of a press that has grow to be noncompetitive and enormously highly effective and
influential in its capability to control widespread opinion and alter the course of occasions.” Id. at
248–49. Those issues echo as we speak with social media platforms and “Big Tech” all of the whereas
newspapers are additional consolidating and, usually, dying out. Back to 1974, when newspapers have been
seen with monopolistic suspicion, the Supreme Court concluded that newspapers exercised
“editorial control and judgment” by choosing the “material to go into a newspaper,” deciding the
“limitations on the size and content of the paper,” and deciding the best way to deal with “public points and
public officers—whether or not truthful or unfair.” Id. at 258. “It has but to be demonstrated how
governmental regulation of this significant course of may be exercised in line with First Amendment
ensures of a free press as they’ve advanced to this time.”

There’s additionally a enjoyable bit for all of the very foolish individuals who maintain insisting that social media web sites are “common carriers” which might topic them to sure restrictions. The court docket says “nope,” highlights how very completely different they’re from frequent carriers, and strikes on.

This Court begins from the premise that social media platforms aren’t frequent carriers.
“Equal entry obligations . . . have lengthy been imposed on phone firms, railroads, and postal
companies, with out elevating any First Amendment problem.” United States Telecom Ass’n v. Fed. Commc’ns
Comm’n, 825 F.3d 674, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Little First Amendment concern exists as a result of
frequent carriers “merely facilitate the transmission of speech of others.” Id. at 741. In United States
Telecom, the Court added broadband suppliers to its listing of frequent carriers. Id. Unlike broadband
suppliers and phone firms, social media platforms “aren’t engaged in indiscriminate,
impartial transmission of any and all customers’ speech.” Id. at 742. User-generated content material on social media
platforms is screened and typically moderated or curated. The State balks that the screening is
completed by an algorithm, not an individual, however regardless of the methodology, social media platforms aren’t mere
conduits. According to the State, our inquiry might finish right here, with Plaintiffs not needing to show
extra to indicate they have interaction in protected editorial discretion. During the listening to, the Court requested the
State, “[T]o what extent does a discovering that these entities are frequent carriers, to what extent is that
necessary out of your perspective within the invoice’s skill to outlive a First Amendment problem?” (See
Minute Entry, Dkt. 47). Counsel for the State responded, “[T]he frequent carriage doctrine is
important to the First Amendment problem. It’s why it’s the brink problem that we’ve briefed . . . .
It dictates the remainder of this go well with by way of the First Amendment inquiry.” (Id.). As interesting because the
State’s invitation is to cease the evaluation right here, the Court continues with the intention to make a dedication
about whether or not social media platforms train editorial discretion or occupy a purgatory between
frequent provider and editor.

There’s additionally a brief footnote completely dismissing the truth that the Texas invoice, HB20, tries to simply outright declare social media websites as frequent carriers. That’s not how any of this works.

HB 20’s pronouncement that social media platforms are frequent carriers… doesn’t affect this Court’s authorized evaluation.

The choose briefly notes that social media is clearly completely different in some ways than newspapers, and that AI-based moderation is definitely a technological differentiator, however then brings it again round to fundamental ideas: it is nonetheless all editorial discretion.

This Court is satisfied that social media platforms, or at the very least these lined by HB 20,
curate each customers and content material to convey a message about the kind of neighborhood the platform seeks
to foster and, as such, train editorial discretion over their platform’s content material.

In truth, Texas legislators’ and the governor’s personal hubris helped sink this invoice by admitting within the invoice itself and in quotes concerning the invoice, how that is all about editorial discretion.

Indeed, the textual content of
HB 20 itself factors to social media platforms doing greater than transmitting communication. In
Section 2, HB 20 acknowledges that social media platforms “(1) curate[] and goal[] content material to customers,
(2) place[] and promote[] content material, companies, and merchandise, together with its personal content material, companies, and
merchandise, (3) reasonable[] content material, and (4) use[] search, rating, or different algorithms or procedures
that decide outcomes on the platform.” Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 120.051(a)(1)–(4). Finally, the
State’s personal foundation for enacting HB 20 acknowledges that social media platforms train editorial
discretion. “[T]here’s a harmful motion by social media firms to silence conservative
viewpoints and concepts.” Governor Abbott Signs Law Protecting Texans from Wrongful Social Media Censorship,
OFFICE OF THE TEX. GOVERNOR (Sept. 9, 2021), https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governorabbott-
signs-law-protecting-texans-from-wrongful-social-media-censorship. “Texans should be capable of
communicate with out being censored by West Coast oligarchs.” Bryan Hughes (@SenBryanHughes),
TWITTER (Aug. 9, 2021, 4:34 PM), https://twitter.com/SenBryanHughes/status/
1424846466183487492 Just just like the Florida legislation, a “fixed theme of [Texas] legislators, in addition to
the Governor . . . , was that the [platforms’] selections on what to go away in or take out and the best way to
current the surviving materials are ideologically biased and have to be reined in.” NetChoice, 2021 WL
2690876, at *7. Without editorial discretion, social media platforms couldn’t skew their platforms
ideologically, because the State accuses of them of doing. Taking all of it collectively, case legislation, HB 20’s textual content, and
the Governor and state legislators’ personal statements all acknowledge that social media platforms
train some type of editorial discretion, whether or not or not the State agrees with how that discretion
is exercised.

And then, as soon as it is clear that moderating is identical as editorial discretion, it is easy to see how the invoice’s restrictions are a transparent 1st Amendment drawback. It does this, first, by highlighting the not possible decisions the invoice places in entrance of social media firms, utilizing the instance of content material about Nazis.

The State claims that social media platforms
might prohibit content material classes “such as ‘terrorist speech,’ ‘pornography,’ ‘spam,’ or ‘racism’” to
stop these content material classes from flooding their platforms. (Resp. Prelim. Inj. Mot., Dkt. 39, at
21). During the listening to, the State defined {that a} social media platform “can’t discriminate in opposition to
customers who put up Nazi speech . . . and [not] discriminate in opposition to customers who put up speech concerning the antiwhite
or one thing like that.” (See Minute Entry, Dkt. 47). Plaintiffs level out the fallacy within the
State’s assertion with an instance: a video of Adolf Hitler making a speech, in a single context the
viewpoint is selling Nazism, and a platform ought to be capable of reasonable that content material, and in
one other context the point of view is declaring the atrocities of the Holocaust, and a platform ought to
be capable of disseminate that content material. (See id.). HB 20 appears to put social media platforms within the
untenable place of selecting, for instance, to advertise Nazism in opposition to its needs or ban Nazism
as a content material class. (Prelim. Inj. Mot., Dkt. 12, at 29). As YouTube put it, “YouTube will face an
not possible selection between (1) risking legal responsibility by moderating content material recognized to violate its
requirements or (2) subjecting YouTube’s neighborhood to hurt by permitting violative content material to stay
on the location.”

And thus:

HB 20’s prohibitions on “censorship” and constraints on how social media platforms
disseminate content material violate the First Amendment.

Why?

HB 20 compels social media platforms to
considerably alter and deform their merchandise. Moreover, “the targets of the statutes at problem are the
editorial judgments themselves” and the “introduced objective of balancing the dialogue—reining
within the ideology of the massive social-media suppliers—is exactly the sort of state motion held
unconstitutional in Tornillo, Hurley, and PG&E.” Id. HB 20 additionally impermissibly burdens social media
platforms’ personal speech. Id. at *9 (“[T]he statutes compel the platforms to alter their very own speech in
different respects, together with, for instance, by dictating how the platforms could prepare speech on their
websites.”). For instance, if a platform appends its personal speech to label a put up as misinformation, the
platform could also be discriminating in opposition to that consumer’s viewpoint by including its personal disclaimer. HB 20
restricts social media platforms’ First Amendment proper to interact in expression once they disagree
with or object to content material.

At this level, the court docket dismisses, in a footnote, the 2 instances that very foolish individuals at all times carry up: Pruneyard and Rumsfeld. Pruneyard is the very distinctive shopping center case, which has very restricted attain, and Rumsfeld is a few college permitting or not permitting navy recruiters on campus. Supporters of efforts to power web sites to host speech level to each instances as some form of “proof” that it is okay to compel speech, however each are very narrowly targeted, and anybody counting on both is doing a nasty religion “well, in these cases you could compel speech, so in this case obviously you can as well.” But the choose is not having any of it.

The Court notes that two different Supreme Court instances deal with this matter, however neither applies right here. PruneYard
Shopping Center v. Robins is distinguishable from the information of this case. 447 U.S. 74 (1980). In PruneYard, the
Supreme Court upheld a California legislation that required a shopping center to host individuals accumulating petition
signatures, concluding there was no “intrusion into the function of editors” because the shopping center’s
operation of its enterprise lacked an editorial operate. Id. at 88. Critically, the shopping center didn’t have interaction in
expression and “the [mall] proprietor didn’t even allege that he objected to the content material of the [speech]; nor was
the entry proper content material primarily based.” PG&E, 475 U.S. at 12. Similarly, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic
& Institutional Rights, Inc. has no bearing on this Court’s holding as a result of it didn’t contain authorities
restrictions on editorial capabilities. 547 U.S. 47 (2006). The challenged legislation required faculties that allowed
employment recruiters on campus to additionally enable navy employment recruiters on campus—a restriction on
“conduct, not speech.” Id. at 62, 65. As the Supreme Court defined, “accommodating the navy’s message
doesn’t have an effect on the legislation faculties’ speech, as a result of the faculties aren’t talking when the host interviews and
recruiting receptions.”

Even extra importantly, the court docket rejects the transparency necessities in HB20. Again, this half was one which some individuals thought would possibly slide by means of and be left in place. We’ve mentioned, a number of instances, how transparency on these points is necessary, however that mandated transparency really creates critical issues. The court docket, fortunately, agrees.

To go constitutional muster, disclosure necessities like these should require solely “factual
and noncontroversial info” and can’t be “unjustified or unduly burdensome.” NIFLA, 138
S. Ct. at 2372. Section 2’s disclosure and operational provisions are inordinately burdensome given
the unfathomably massive numbers of posts on these websites and apps. For instance, in three months in
2021, Facebook eliminated 8.8 million items of “bullying and harassment content,” 9.8 million items
of “organized hate content,” and 25.2 million items of “hate speech content.” (CCIA Decl., Dkt.
12-1, at 15). During the final three months of 2020, YouTube eliminated simply over 2 million channels
and over 9 million movies as a result of they violated its insurance policies. (Id. at 16). While a few of these removals
are topic to an present appeals course of, many removals aren’t. For instance, in a three-monthperiod
in 2021, YouTube eliminated 1.16 billion feedback. (YouTube Decl., Dkt. 12-3, at 23–24).
Those 1.16 billion removals weren’t appealable, however, underneath HB 20, they must be. (Id.).
Over the span of six months in 2018, Facebook, Google, and Twitter took motion on over 5 billion
accounts or consumer submissions—together with 3 billion instances of spam, 57 million instances of pornography,
17 million instances of content material relating to youngster security, and 12 million instances of extremism, hate speech,
and terrorist speech. (NetChoice Decl., Dkt. 12-2, at 8). During the State’s deposition of Neil
Christopher Potts (“Potts”), who’s Facebook’s Vice President of Trust and Safety Policy, Potts
acknowledged that it could be “impossible” for Facebook “to adjust to something by December 1, [2021].
. . [W]e wouldn’t be capable of change programs in that nature. . . . I don’t see a method that we might
really be capable of go ahead with compliance in a significant method.” (Potts Depo., Dkt. 39-2, at 2,
46). Plaintiffs additionally specific a priority that revealing “algorithms or procedures that decide outcomes
on the platform” could reveal commerce secrets and techniques or confidential and competitively-sensitive info.
(Id. at 34) (quoting Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 120.051(a)(4)).

The Section 2 necessities burden First Amendment expression by “forc[ing] parts of
civil society to talk once they in any other case would have refrained.” Washington Post v. McManus, 944
F.3d 506, 514 (4th Cir. 2019). “It is the presence of compulsion from the state itself that
compromises the First Amendment.” Id. at 515. The provisions additionally impose unduly burdensome
disclosure necessities on social media platforms “that will chill their protected speech.” NIFLA,
138 S. Ct. at 2378. The penalties of noncompliance additionally chill the social media platforms’ speech
and utility of their content material moderation insurance policies and consumer agreements. Noncompliance can
topic social media platforms to critical penalties. The Texas Attorney General could search
injunctive aid and acquire lawyer’s charges and “reasonable investigative costs” if profitable in
acquiring injunctive aid. Id. § 120.151.

I’ll simply be aware that we had simply talked about that Washington Post v. McManus case earlier this week in calling out the Washington Post’s hypocrisy in calling for necessary disclosure guidelines for web firms…

And Judge Pitman is not completed but with the constitutional issues of HB20.

HB 20 moreover suffers from constitutional defects as a result of it discriminates primarily based on
content material and speaker. First, HB 20 excludes two sorts of content material from its prohibition on content material
moderation and permits social media platforms to reasonable content material: (1) that “is the topic of a
referral or request from a company with the aim of stopping the sexual exploitation of
youngsters and defending survivors of sexual abuse from ongoing harassment,” and (2) that “instantly
incites prison exercise or consists of particular threats of violence focused in opposition to an individual or group
due to their race, shade, incapacity, faith, nationwide origin or ancestry, age, intercourse, or standing as a
peace officer or choose.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 143A.006(a)(2)–(3). When contemplating a metropolis
ordinance that utilized to ‘“fighting words’ that . . . provoke violence[] ‘on the idea of race, shade,
creed, faith[,] or gender,”’ the Supreme Court famous that these “who want to use ‘fighting words’
in reference to different concepts—to precise hostility, for instance, on the idea of political affiliation,
union membership, or []sexuality—aren’t lined.” R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377,
391 (1992). As Plaintiffs argue, the State has “no reliable motive to permit the platforms to implement
their insurance policies over threats primarily based solely on . . . favored standards however not” different standards like sexual
orientation, navy service, or union membership. (Prelim. Inj. Mot., Dkt. 12, at 35–36); see id.

There’s additionally some good language in right here for many who maintain insisting that setting (usually arbitrary) measurement boundaries or carveouts on these legal guidelines is completely fantastic. Not so in the event that they result in discriminatory affect on venues for speech:

HB 20 applies solely to social media platforms of a sure measurement: platforms with 50 million
month-to-month lively customers within the United States. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 120.002(b). HB 20 excludes
social media platforms akin to Parler and sports activities and information web sites. (See Prelim. Inj. Mot., Dkt. 12,
at 17). During the common legislative session, a state senator unsuccessfully proposed decreasing the
threshold to 25 million month-to-month customers in an effort to incorporate websites like “Parler and Gab, that are
widespread amongst conservatives.” Shawn Mulcahy, Texas Senate approves invoice to cease social media firms
from banning Texans for political beliefs, TEX. TRIBUNE (Mar. 30, 2021), https://www.texas
tribune.org/2021/03/30/texas-social-media-censorship/. “[D]iscrimination between audio system is
usually a inform for content material discrimination.” NetChoice, 2021 WL 2690876, at *10. The discrimination
between audio system has particular significance within the context of media as a result of “[r]egulations that
discriminate amongst media, or amongst completely different audio system inside a single medium, usually current
critical First Amendment issues.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 659 (1994). The
document on this case confirms that the Legislature meant to focus on massive social media platforms
perceived as being biased in opposition to conservative views and the State’s disagreement with the social
media platforms’ editorial discretion over their platforms. The proof thus means that the State
discriminated between social media platforms (or audio system) for causes that don’t stand as much as
scrutiny.

And, after all, everybody’s favourite: HB 20 is unconstitutionally imprecise.

First, Plaintiffs take problem with HB 20’s definition for “censor:” “block, ban, take away,
deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, prohibit, deny equal entry or visibility to, or in any other case
discriminate in opposition to expression.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 143A.001(1). Plaintiffs argue that
requiring social media platforms to require “equal access or visibility to” content material is “hopelessly
indeterminate.” (Prelim. Inj. Mot., Dkt. 12, at 37) (quoting id.). The Court agrees. A social media
platform just isn’t static snapshot in time like a tough copy newspaper. It strikes the Court as practically
not possible for a social media platform—that has at the very least 50 million customers—to find out whether or not
any single piece of content material has “equal access or visibility” versus one other piece of content material
given the
enormous numbers of customers and content material. Moreover, this requirement might “prohibit[] a social media
platform from” displaying content material “in the proper feeds”

There are another drafting oddities that the Judge calls out together with this one:

HB 20 empowers the Texas Attorney General to hunt an injunction not simply in opposition to
violations of the statute but in addition “potential violations.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 143A.008.
Unlike different statutes that specify that the potential violation have to be imminent, HB 20 consists of no
such qualification. See, e.g., Tex. Occ. Code § 1101.752(a) (authorizing the lawyer normal to hunt
injunctive aid to abate a possible violation “if the fee determines that an individual has
violated or is about to violate this chapter”). Subjecting social media platforms to go well with for potential
violations, and not using a qualification, reaches nearly all content material moderation selections platforms would possibly
make, additional chilling their First Amendment rights.

As within the Florida case, the court docket right here notes that even when there have been some motive underneath which the legislation ought to be judged underneath intermediate, moderately than strict, scrutiny, it could nonetheless fail.

HB 20 imposes content-based, viewpoint-based, and speaker-based restrictions that set off
strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is happy provided that a state has adopted ‘“the least restrictive technique of
reaching a compelling state curiosity.”’ Americans for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373, 2383,
210 L. Ed. second 716 (2021) (quoting McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 478 (2014)). Even underneath the much less
rigorous intermediate scrutiny, the State should show that HB 20 is ‘“narrowly tailed to serve a
vital authorities curiosity.’” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1736 (2017) (quoting
McCullen, 573 U.S. at 477). The proclaimed authorities pursuits right here fall quick underneath each
requirements.

It’s not even a troublesome name. It’s the sort of “duh” clarification that made it simple for us to say upfront that this legislation was so clearly unconstitutional:

The State’s first curiosity fails on a number of accounts. First, social media
platforms are privately owned platforms, not public boards. Second, this Court has discovered that the
lined social media platforms aren’t frequent carriers. Even in the event that they have been, the State gives no
convincing assist for recognizing a governmental curiosity within the free and unobstructed use of
frequent carriers’ info conduits. Third, the Supreme Court rejected an an identical authorities
curiosity in Tornillo. In Tornillo, Florida argued that “authorities has an obligation to make sure that a
broad number of views attain the general public.” Tornillo, 418 U.S. at 247–48. After detailing the “issues
associated to government-enforced entry,” the Court held that the state couldn’t commandeer non-public
firms to facilitate that entry, even within the title of decreasing the “abuses of bias and
manipulative reportage [that] are . . . stated to be the results of the huge accumulations of unreviewable
energy within the fashionable media empires.” Id. at 250, 254. The State’s second curiosity—stopping
“discrimination” by social media platforms—has been rejected by the Supreme Court. Even given a
state’s normal curiosity in anti-discrimination legal guidelines, “forbidding acts of discrimination” is “a decidedly
deadly goal” for the First Amendment’s “free speech commands.”…

And, the court docket virtually laughs out loud at the concept HB 20 was “narrowly tailored.”

Even if the State’s purported pursuits have been compelling and vital, HB 20 just isn’t
narrowly tailor-made. Sections 2 and seven comprise broad provisions with far-reaching, critical
penalties. When reviewing the same statute handed in Florida, the Northern District of Florida
discovered that that statute was not narrowly tailor-made “like prior First Amendment restrictions.”
NetChoice, 2021 WL 2690876, at *11 (citing Reno, 521 U.S. at 882; Sable Commc’n of Cal., Inc. v. FCC,
492 U.S. 115, 131 (1989)). Rather, the court docket colorfully described it as “an occasion of burning the
home to roast a pig.” Id. This Court couldn’t do higher in describing HB 20.

End outcome: injunction granted, the legislation doesn’t go into impact as we speak as initially deliberate. Texas will undoubtedly now enchantment, and we are able to solely hope the fifth Circuit would not muck issues up, as it has been identified to do. Depending on how this performs out, in addition to how the eleventh Circuit handles the Florida case, it is attainable this might hit the Supreme Court down the highway. Hopefully, each the eleventh and the fifth really take heed of Justice Kavanaugh’s phrases within the Halleck case, and select to uphold each district court docket rulings — and we are able to get previous this foolish Trump-inspired ethical panic assault on the first Amendment rights of social media platforms — the exact same rights that allow them to create areas for us to talk and share our personal concepts.

Hide this

Thank you for studying this Techdirt put up. With so many issues competing for everybody’s consideration as of late, we actually recognize you giving us your time. We work arduous each day to place high quality content material on the market for our neighborhood.

Techdirt is among the few remaining actually impartial media retailers. We do not need a large company behind us, and we rely closely on our neighborhood to assist us, in an age when advertisers are more and more bored with sponsoring small, impartial websites — particularly a website like ours that’s unwilling to drag punches in its reporting and evaluation.

While different web sites have resorted to paywalls, registration necessities, and more and more annoying/intrusive promoting, we now have at all times saved Techdirt open and accessible to anybody. But with the intention to proceed doing so, we’d like your assist. We provide quite a lot of methods for our readers to assist us, from direct donations to particular subscriptions and funky merchandise — and each little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st modification, content material moderation, florida, hb20, part 230, social media, strict scrutiny, texas
Companies: ccia, netchoice




Like it? Share with your friends!

207
185 shares, 207 points

What's Your Reaction?

confused confused
0
confused
lol lol
0
lol
hate hate
0
hate
fail fail
0
fail
fun fun
0
fun
geeky geeky
0
geeky
love love
0
love
omg omg
0
omg
win win
0
win