Texas is going all in on laws that won’t survive Court scrutiny.

...it's the thrill of political theater. Red meat for partisan flunkies and great for the media cycle, but stupid and wasteful in every other respect.

all that matters to republicans is gamification of democracy.

if these laws push their supporters to the polls because libruls might interfere, thats all the reason to pass them.

but i would not rely on the federal courts to squash these things in any speed or even at Ll given the carpet bombing trump did to bias the judicial system

If you're referencing the abortion bounty law, it is not obvious how that will go down.

If that sentence isn't a moment of clarity in American politics I don't know what could be.

Plus how would they even enforce this? If the company in question isn't in Texas how could they possibly compel a company outside of Texas' jurisdiction to comply?

(Regardless of merit)

First, a lot of big companies do operate in Texas, for lots of reasons, including decent connectivity, an interesting energy market, and some amount of low cost workforce.

If that doesn't work, then you can always follow the money and sanction companies that do business with the company you want to sanction. No Texas advertising would make an impact.

FB do have a large Austin office[1] (and a small Dallas one too, apparently).

1: https://www.facebook.com/careers/v2/locations/?job_region=No...

But you have to bring charges or sue in the state the company is headquartered in or in federal court. Facebook is headquartered in California. Texas can't legally compel Facebook to do anything. They can attempt to sue in California court but the case would have no merit because it's not in violation of California law. Now Texas could potentially sue Facebook in absentia in a Texas court but would have no way to enforce the judgement. Besides if it came down to that Facebook could just block traffic from Texas which would probably end this nonsense real quick.

I'm unqualified to opine on the jurisdictional issue, but I had assumed if the person harmed was in the state and the business operated in the state and had substantial presence in the state, there would be a case to sue in the state. I will be happy to read any references you can provide to help illuminate me on this.

This note seems to indicate suing out of state corporations in state courts is often accepted, and the exceptions seem to be cases where there's no real connection for the corporation to the state: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/...

I also saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF_Railway_Co._v._Tyrrell where the company does have some presence in the state, but it was not its state of incorporation or principle place of business, and the plantiffs were not resident in the state and the events in the case didn't take place in that state either.

On enforcing the judgement, I would assume under a Writ of Execution local sheriffs could seize Facebook property at their offices in Austin or Dallas, or their data centers in Fort Worth. Those buildings (if owned and not leased) and/or their contents are certainly subject to judgements in the state of Texas.

But the law deals specifically with social media companies. There's no major social media companies headquartered in Texas.

Florida tried to force internet sites to carry politicians' opinions but it didn't survive the first challenge https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/7/1/22558980/florida-social-...

As long as it was a legal option, I would immediately exclude all of Texas from having user accounts or advertising on my network. In the case of FB, public pressure would immediately work in my favor.

There are plenty of financial groups and apps that exclude based on territory due to local laws and regulations, I believe it is a legal option. It's a little flex and would result in short term advertising revenue loss but should end any further meddling in my "free" to join business.

"Your representatives believe they have the right to meddle in the content policies of our organization, they do not, until these foolish new regulations are repealed, Texas is no longer part of Facebook, please contact your representatives about this matter, a download of your account content will remain available "here" - Thank You, The Lizard King"

Is anyone else watching this series of laws get passed and wonder how many companies are going to pull out or stop investing in Texas? Houston was starting to look like a tech hub, but it seems like the brakes are being slammed so Texas stays red.

This law maybe, but I'm not convinced the Abortion bounty bill would actually have an effect on Texas businesses. Programming is a full on sausage fest, so it wouldn't exactly stop them from hiring developers

Unless Texas manages to repeal the 1st Amendment, they won't succeed in telling private companies what to publish.

With the supreme court recently declining to take a strong, upfront stance on the obviously bad texas abortion bill, I don't think it's safe to rely on precedent and actual constitutionality anymore.

AFAIK, the rejection to review the abortion bill by SCOTUS was a procedure issue and not made on the merits of the case itself

No one thinks what this does for sites like the Gab-clones....lol. All these partisan hackjobs don't sem to realize there are blowback effects that can be leveraged, every...single...time.

The law only applies to sites with 50M active users, so I think all the Gab-clones are safe!

I think we all know the Gab-clones are safe, regardless.

A "left-leaning" blog or newspaper had better hope they never get too popular, though.

The same Texas that prohibits members of the Communist Party from holding public office or working at government jobs

Big defenders of freedom of political speech and conscience and so on

lol.

This is so very needed. As Justice Clarence Thomas articulated, big tech companies should be treated as common carriers (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-ri...). They are the new public square and there are many ways in which they can be legally compelled, as a UCLA Professor recently pointed out (https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and...). Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that is protected under discrimination laws.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Clarence Thomas is clearly a partisan idiot.