Texas House Bill 20

Last updated

Texas House Bill 20
Seal of Texas.svg
Texas Legislature
  • An Act Relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages.
Territorial extentTexas
Passed by Texas Legislature
PassedSeptember 9, 2021
Legislative history
Bill titleTexas House Bill 20
Introduced by Bryan Hughes, Briscoe Cain
First reading August 19, 2021
Second reading August 27, 2021
Third reading August 31, 2021
Keywords
censorship, Social media, electronic mail, common carrier
Status: Pending

An Act Relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages, also known as Texas House Bill 20 (HB20), is a Texas anti-deplatforming law enacted on September 9, 2021.

Contents

It prohibits large social media platforms from removing, moderating, or labeling posts made by users in the state of Texas based on their "viewpoints", unless considered illegal under federal law or otherwise falling into exempted categories. It also requires them to make various public disclosures relating to their business practices (including the impact of algorithmic and moderation decisions on the content that is delivered to users).

The bill is part of a wider array of Republican-backed legislation seeking to prohibit the censorship of political speech, [1] [2] based on allegations that the moderation policies of large social media platforms are not politically neutral. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

It has been challenged in NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton , and is currently the subject of a circuit split between the Fifth Circuit, and a decision by the Eleventh Circuit that struck down a similar bill in the state of Florida. In September 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear NetChoice v. Paxton jointly with NetChoice v. Moody on questions of whether the Florida and Texas state laws are in compliance with the 1st Amendment. [8] [9]

Content

The law applies to "social media platforms" that serve users in the state of Texas, and have more than 50 million monthly active users in the United States. They are defined as any public internet website or application that allows users to "communicate with other users for the primary purpose of posting information, comments, messages, or images", excluding internet service providers, electronic mail, and services where communication features are "incidental to, directly related to, or dependent on" content that is pre-selected by the operator. [10] In the bill, to "censor" is defined as to "block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against" expression. [2]

The law prohibits social media platforms from "censoring on the basis of user viewpoint, user expression, or the ability of a user to receive the expression of others", or on the basis of a user's geographic location in Texas. This includes removal or labeling posts with warnings and disclaimers. [1] [2] Social media platforms may only censor content if it is unlawful, they are "specifically authorized" to do so by federal law, based on requests from "an organization with the purpose of preventing the sexual exploitation of children or protecting survivors of sexual abuse from ongoing harassment", or "directly incites" criminal activity or contains threats of violence against persons based on protected categories. [2] It is disputed over whether this provision is actually enforceable, as it may be preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which states that the operators of interactive computer services are not responsible for the actions of their users). [11]

Social media platforms must make public disclosures regarding the algorithmic techniques and moderation polices that are used to determine the content provided to users, must publish a compliant acceptable use policy (AUP), and must publish a biannual transparency report containing specific details on all actions made by the service regarding the moderation of users and content. [2] [1]

The law also prohibits email providers from "intentionally imped[ing] the transmission of another person's electronic mail message based on the content." [2] [1]

Legislative history

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill into law on September 9, 2021. [12] Democrat-proposed amendments excluding Holocaust denial, terrorism content, and vaccine misinformation from the bill were rejected. [13]

Following a suit by the industry groups Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice, NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton , the bill was blocked by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman in December 2021, on First Amendment grounds. Texas appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judges Edith Jones, Andrew Oldham, and Leslie H. Southwick, lifted the injunction on May 11, 2022, [14] but the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court which suspended the bill pending a full review in the Fifth Circuit. [15]

On September 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit reversed the injunction, allowing the bill to take effect; Judge Oldham stated that the bill "chills censorship" and "does not chill speech", and accused the plaintiffs of "attempt[ing] to extract a freewheeling censorship right from the Constitution's free speech guarantee. The Platforms are not newspapers. Their censorship is not speech." Southwick dissented, stating that "we are in a new arena, a very extensive one, for speakers and for those who would moderate their speech. None of the precedents fit seamlessly." [16] [17] The CCIA and NetChoice requested a stay on the ruling and that the case be taken to the Supreme Court, arguing that the reversal conflicts with an Eleventh Circuit decision in NetChoice v. Moody which struck down a similar anti-moderation bill imposed by the state of Florida. On October 12, 2022, the Fifth Circuit granted the stay. [18] [19]

Related Research Articles

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) is a Washington, D.C.–based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organisation that advocates for digital rights and freedom of expression. CDT seeks to promote legislation that enables individuals to use the internet for purposes of well-intent, while at the same time reducing its potential for harm. It advocates for transparency, accountability, and limiting the collection of personal information.

In the United States, internet censorship is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Computer & Communications Industry Association</span>

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) is an international non-profit advocacy organization based in Washington, DC, United States which represents the information and communications technology industries. According to their site, CCIA "promotes open markets, open systems, open networks, and full, fair, and open competition." Established in 1972, CCIA was active in antitrust cases involving IBM, AT&T and Microsoft, and lobbied for net neutrality, copyright and patent reform and against internet censorship and policies, mergers or other situations that would reduce competition. CCIA released a study it commissioned by an MIT professor, which analyzed the cost of patent trolls to the economy., a study on the economic benefits of Fair Use and has testified before the Senate on limiting government surveillance and on internet censorship as a trade issue.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 230</span> US federal law on website liability

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Backpage</span> Defunct classified advertising website

Backpage.com was a classified advertising website founded in 2004 by the alternative newspaper chain New Times Inc./New Times Media as a rival to Craigslist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gab (social network)</span> Alt-tech social media service

Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service known for its far-right userbase. Widely described as a haven for neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, antisemites, the alt-right, supporters of Donald Trump, conservatives, right-libertarians, and believers in conspiracy theories such as QAnon, Gab has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media platforms and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms. Founded in 2016 and launched publicly in May 2017, Gab claims to promote free speech, individual liberty, the "free flow of information online", and Christian values. Researchers and journalists have characterized these assertions as an obfuscation of its extremist ecosystem. Antisemitism is prominent in the site's content and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary. Gab CEO Andrew Torba has promoted the white genocide conspiracy theory. Gab is based in Pennsylvania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mastodon (social network)</span> Self-hosted social network software

Mastodon is free and open-source software for running self-hosted social networking services. It has microblogging features similar to Twitter, which are offered by a large number of independently run nodes, known as instances or servers, each with its own code of conduct, terms of service, privacy policy, privacy options, and content moderation policies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Censorship by Facebook</span>

Facebook has been involved in multiple controversies involving censorship of content, removing or omitting information from its services in order to comply with company policies, legal demands, and government censorship laws.

The Network Enforcement Act, also known colloquially as the Facebook Act, is a German law that was passed in the Bundestag that officially aims to combat fake news, hate speech and misinformation online.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">FOSTA-SESTA</span> US communications/sex trafficking bills

FOSTA and SESTA are U.S. Senate and House bills which became law on April 11, 2018. They clarify the country's sex trafficking law to make it illegal to knowingly assist, facilitate, or support sex trafficking, and amend the Section 230 safe harbors of the Communications Decency Act to exclude enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws from its immunity. Senate sponsor Rob Portman had previously led an investigation into the online classifieds service Backpage, and argued that Section 230 was protecting its "unscrupulous business practices" and was not designed to provide immunity to websites that facilitate sex trafficking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deplatforming</span> Administrative or political action to deny access to a platform to express opinions

Deplatforming, also known as no-platforming, has been defined as an "attempt to boycott a group or individual through removing the platforms used to share information or ideas", or "the action or practice of preventing someone holding views regarded as unacceptable or offensive from contributing to a forum or debate, especially by blocking them on a particular website."

MeWe is a global social media and social networking service. As a company based in Los Angeles, California it is also known as Sgrouples, Inc., doing business as MeWe. The site has been described as a Facebook alternative due to its focus on data privacy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">EARN IT Act</span> Proposed US legislation

The EARN IT Act is proposed legislation first introduced in 2020 in the United States Congress. It aims to amend Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which allows operators of websites to remove user-posted content that they deem inappropriate, and provides them with immunity from civil lawsuits related to such posting. Section 230 is the only surviving portion of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Services Act</span> European Union regulation on digital services content

The Digital Services Act is a Regulation in EU law to update the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 regarding illegal content, transparent advertising, and disinformation. It was submitted along with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) by the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on 15 December 2020. The DSA was prepared by the Executive Vice President of the European Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age Margrethe Vestager and by the European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton, as members of the Von der Leyen Commission.

There is evidence that TikTok has down-weighted the posts of topics deemed sensitive by the Chinese government and Chinese Communist Party. Topics alleged to have been censored by the platform include the Uyghur genocide, the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, the Sino-Indian border dispute, foreign political leaders, LGBTQ+ people, disabled people, and Black people. TikTok has also removed or omitted information from its services in order to comply with company policies, legal demands, and government censorship laws. TikTok's responses to claims of censorship have varied, responding that the platform was attempting to protect users from bullying, arguing that certain instances were the result of human error, and stating that such incidents were the result of algorithmic mistakes.

The Online Safety Bill is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom intended to improve internet safety. It was published as a draft on 12 May 2021 and received its third reading on 19 September 2023. Following the earlier 2019 Online Harms White Paper, the bill gives the relevant Secretary of State the power, subject to parliamentary approval, to designate and address a wide range of potentially harmful content, which may include online trolling, illegal pornography and underage access to legal pornography, and some forms of internet fraud.

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to protected speech under the First Amendment, content moderation by Internet service providers under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and two state laws passed in Florida and Texas that sought to limit this moderation. The case is a also closely related to NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton. Both cases are challenges to state laws restricting content moderation on social media websites. The case is expected to be heard during the Court's 2023–24 term.

Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 598 U.S. 617 (2023), was a case at the Supreme Court of the United States which dealt with the question of whether or not recommender systems are covered by liability exemptions under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934—which was established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996—for Internet service providers, in dealing with terrorism-related content posted by users and hosted on their servers. The case was granted certiorari alongside another Section 230 and terrorism-related case, Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh.

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023), was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case considered whether Internet service providers are liable for "aiding and abetting" a designated foreign terrorist organization in an "act of international terrorism", on account of recommending such content posted by users, under Section 2333 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Along with Gonzalez v. Google LLC, Taamneh is one of two cases where social media companies are accused of aiding and abetting terrorism in violation of the law. The cases were decided together in a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that Taamneh's case could proceed. The cases challenge the broad liability immunity for hosting and recommending terrorist content that websites have enjoyed.

<i>Moderator Mayhem</i> 2023 mobile video game

Moderator Mayhem is a casual web-based video game designed by Engine, Randy Lubin, and Mike Masnick of Techdirt targeted towards policymakers. The game is about the challenges of content moderation of user-generated content on social media.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Stern, Mark Joseph (May 12, 2022). "The 5th Circuit's Reinstatement of Texas' Internet Censorship Law Could Break Social Media". Slate . Retrieved September 24, 2022.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "District Court Enjoins Controversial Texas House Bill 20". JD Supra. Retrieved September 24, 2022.
  3. Harmon, Elliot (April 12, 2018). "No, Section 230 Does Not Require Platforms to Be "Neutral"". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on February 17, 2021. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
  4. Robertson, Adi (June 21, 2019). "Why the internet's most important law exists and how people are still getting it wrong". The Verge. Archived from the original on February 26, 2021. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
  5. Lecher, Colin (June 20, 2019). "Both parties are mad about a proposal for federal anti-bias certification". The Verge. Archived from the original on February 24, 2021. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
  6. Brandom, Russell (June 17, 2020). "Senate Republicans want to make it easier to sue tech companies for bias". The Verge . Archived from the original on February 20, 2021. Retrieved June 17, 2020.
  7. Kelly, Makena (September 8, 2020). "Republicans pressure platforms with new 230 bill". The Verge . Archived from the original on February 28, 2021. Retrieved September 8, 2020.
  8. Bravin, Jess (September 29, 2023). "Supreme Court Takes Case on Social-Media Content Moderation". The Wall Street Journal. News Corp. Retrieved September 29, 2023.
  9. Capoot, Ashley (September 29, 2023). "Supreme Court to hear Texas and Florida social media cases over right to moderate content". CNBC. Retrieved September 29, 2023.
  10. Fri, Sep 23rd 2022 09:34am-Mike Masnick (September 23, 2022). "Did The 5th Circuit Just Make It So That Wikipedia Can No Longer Be Edited In Texas?". Techdirt. Retrieved September 24, 2022.
  11. Masnick, Mike (September 30, 2022). "No One Has Any Clue How Texas' Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can't Work)". Techdirt. Retrieved October 1, 2022.
  12. "Governor Abbott Signs Law Protecting Texans From Wrongful Social Media Censorship". gov.texas.gov.
  13. Mon, Aug 30th 2021 12:13pm-Mike Masnick (August 30, 2021). "Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism". Techdirt. Retrieved September 24, 2022.
  14. Sabrina Canfield (May 9, 2022). "Texas asks Fifth Circuit to reinstate social media law". Courthouse News Service .
  15. Kern, Rebecca (May 31, 2022). "Supreme Court blocks Texas law on social media 'censorship'". Politico.
  16. Kern, Rebecca. "5th Circuit upholds Texas law forbidding social media 'censorship' — again". POLITICO. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
  17. Gold, Ashley (September 18, 2022). "Federal appeals court upholds controversial Texas social media law". Axios. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
  18. Masnick, Mike (October 13, 2022). "Texas' Ridiculous Content Moderation Bill Put On Hold Until The Supreme Court Can Consider It". Techdirt. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
  19. Kern, Rebecca. "5th Circuit blocks Texas social media law as parties turn to SCOTUS". POLITICO. Retrieved October 14, 2022.