Supreme Court suspends Texas law banning blocking of social media posts – 5/31/2022

The founder of America's speculative fund is the buyer of the world's most expensive constitution - 11/19/2021

WASHINGTON, June 1, 2022 (AFP) — The United States Supreme Court has again struck down a controversial law that prevents social networks from being “censored” based on attitudes.

The law threatens to criminalize the suppression of expressions of hatred or intolerance online and to point to publications that are clearly false.

Conservative politicians accuse Facebook, Twitter and other platforms of suppressing their voices.

Social networks argue that content moderation decisions are based on factors such as the risk of real-world harm.

Former President Donald Trump was banned from Facebook and Twitter after a mob of his followers attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an effort to prevent the confirmation of Joe Biden’s election victory.

The Texas state law in question prohibits profiles of more than 50 million users from being vetoed based on political views.

The NetChoice trade association, which has members including Amazon, Facebook and Google, challenged the law and convinced a federal court in Texas to suspend its application until it became clear whether it was before the US Constitution. Struggles with amendments.

An appeals court sided with Texas and ruled in favor of the state, which took the matter to the Supreme Court, which upheld the original decision to suspend the law while deciding whether it should be dropped altogether. .

Now, the case returns to Texas District Court to evaluate the arguments and determine the constitutionality of the law.

In its original ruling, the district court held that social networks had the right to moderate content and that the provision of misinformation warning labels could also infringe Internet companies’ right to freedom of expression.

See also  Changes in income tax may harm micro and small businesses

“Texas law violates the First Amendment because it forces social networks to post content they don’t want published and because it prevents them from reacting to posts they disagree with,” said the University of Washington Scott Wilkens, counsel for the First Amendment Institute, said. Colombia.


Knight Capital Group





About the author: Sarah Gracie

"Proud social media buff. Unapologetic web scholar. Internet guru. Lifelong music junkie. Travel specialist."

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *