Abbot admitting that the purpose of the law is to force unwilling private entities to promote conservative viewpoints is likely to be front and center in the ruling striking it down as an overt free speech violation. That's the part you are supposed to at least make opponents catch you saying privately to a friendly audience to prove their point...

You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored?

I think there are a number of Palestinian journalist, who'd disagree

> You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored?

No, I think the fact that the law was passed (and that Abbot openly admitted it, which makes it much easier to prove) to advance a particular political viewpoint means that (independent of whether it might be framed neutrally or have neutral effect) it is Constitutionally impermissible, since either of an improper purpose, improper mechanism, or improper effect can make a law unconstitutional.

the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint.

The recent events, where conservative voices were targeted by big tech, was the catalyst for the law, but that doesn't make it illegal.

> the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint.

You seem to be assuming a facially neutral law with a viewpoint specific purpose is Constitutional. It is not.

Usually, its harder to prove an improper purpose for a facially-neutral law, but then usually the people passing and signing a law with an improper purpose don't just public announce the viewpoint they are seeking to advance.

The fact aside as others have pointed out that this basically a reversal of what free speech means, the other thing is, since when is an institution, merely because it has public character, required to tolerate all political viewpoints?

Clearly churches or religious institutions in many places serve the function of a public square, yet I can't walk into one and demand to debate anyone on the merits of atheism.

It's a very weird, sort of "in your face"-ism. Freedom of assembly means that said assembly can deny people entry or be exclusionary. That's just how a pluralistic society works. Also it's a very non-conservative idea, a sort of political gender quota

Platforms have several advantages from being platforms, like not being legally responsible for what people are posting there (within limits). It feels right to have obligations as well. You can't say both "I'm not responsible for their political viewpoints" and "I'm free to select the political viewpoints of my members".

A church is not a platform.

> A church is not a platform.

But a pulpit is a platform.

> You can't say both "I'm not responsible for their political viewpoints" and "I'm free to select the political viewpoints of my members".

not only can you say that, it's pretty much a requirement for public platforms to exist on the internet. You are on Hackernews right now. If Hackernews was legally liable for the content users create, it would cease to exist. Likewise, if not being liable meant Hackernews could not moderate the site as they see fit, it would go to hell.

You should be able to make a Christian platform, a left wing platform, a conservative platform, moderate accordingly, and still be able to operate it without facing legal threats that would immediately render operating it impossible. The reason platforms have both rights is why we have a public internet.

Should phone companies be able to ban people for their political opinions? ISPs? The water company? The electricity company? Why do they have to tolerate people using their services to push some political viewpoints?

Let's say there is an easement should there be right to block use of that based on political options. After all it is private property.

The more worrisome "inversion of speech" would seem to be that institutions have the same free speech rights as humans.

Social media platforms are increasingly akin to the pubic forums of old, where essentially all meaningful exchange of ideas takes place — and where excommunication functions like "free speech zones" designed to marginalize and render the exercise of political expression inert.

I would suggest a relevant precedent might be laws limiting media ownership.

I'd also point out that institutions of a certain size exercise control over human in a similar way to governments — and the "private business" distinction becomes increasingly blurry when we consider how deeply these companies collide with law enforcement and govt agencies to censor information.

It's a complicated topic!

The problem with that comparison seems to me that old public forums did engage in plenty of restrictions. if Facebook functioned like the Ecclesia, these rules would apply[1]

    Do keep to the subject being discussed.
    Do treat each subject separately.
    Do not address the same subject twice in the same day.
    Do not be insulting and invective towards a fellow citizen.
    Do avoid slandering a fellow citizen.
    Do not interrupt the proceedings by standing up or shouting or speaking on anything that is not in order.
    Do not lay hands on the presiding officers or interfere with their duties.

"The Board of Presidents were authorized to impose a fine of up to 50 drachmas* to anyone who violated the above rules." (that's about two months of salary).

In fact funnily enough the ancient Board of Presidents is really not that different from Facebook's community oversight board. You will not find any public assembly in history that did not enact rules of conduct and excluded offenders if necessary.

[1]https://studyingreece.edu.gr/7-rules-of-public-speaking-in-a...

I dig the historical context!

My (perhaps sloppy) comparison with respect to public forums wasn't meant to be specific to Ancient Roman strictures, but that's solid trivia.

Perhaps the closer analogue would be modern public spaces in the US — although that too only goes so far.

Texas laws are either very strange, or badly communicated or possibly both. Somehow I "get" what they might be trying to do, but the first Satanist refused writing on a Christian ethics forum is hours away...

There's a 50 million active user in the US requirement. It's pretty much only for the big platforms.

that is a good law... or at least a good start

Texas judges will rule that blasphemy is not protected speech unless it’s Christian.

As a conservative, I'm against this law as it is government overreach.

Instead, Texas should tax Facebook several millions of dollars for all Texas residents who are on Facebook (and all social media with more than X subscribers).

The law should be written as a measure for the public health and should cite numerous studies pointing out the toxic effect of social media.

The end goal should be to get Texans off social media and to end facebooks monopoly. No one needs social media. It is toxic. It should be treated like tobacco is -- a disgusting habit some engage in.

But that would require the republican party to actually be effective and bold and do what it's voters want.

I'm progressive, and I would completely be behind this policy. Unfortunately, both parties need campaign funds, and so they'll both concede to social media lobbyists.

Until we solve campaign finance reform, no progress will be made on even the most agreeable of policy positions, as long as there are deep pockets opposed.

Should the government also target gambling, alcohol and pornography? Should companies in those fields be taxed as well? How do you measure how many Texans consume porn, and from which producers? Are you taxing the studios or the distributors? How many Texans drink Smirnoff?

Yes. Many states do tax gambling establishments if not outright ban them. Why not? They are vices.

Uhh... wouldn't applying this to junk food be like "let's tax all McDonalds out of existence because people eat too many Big Macs"?

Or is it an example of Poe's law in action?

> No one needs social media. It is toxic.

Both of these statements are false.

It seems like Texas, as a whole, has decided to commit economic and political suicide. From the self inflicted failures of the power and gas infrastructure last winter, to the latest assault on women, this law could potentially have all social media ban Texas residents.

> potentially have all social media ban Texas residents

The productivity gains from this action would far outweigh any economic loss.

But the rise in invincible spam would make sites like StackOverflow think twice about accepting questions from Texans.

>It seems like Texas, as a whole, has decided to commit economic and political suicide.

Not really, corporations don't give a heck about rights or principles, only regulations and laws.

Corporations verbally obey and pay lip service to the moral fashions of the perceived memetic majority, that's the user interface.

The backend is a ruthless optimization engine maximizing a very specific utility function and caring for literally nothing else.

And yet: https://www.dallasnews.com/business/economy/2021/08/24/texas...

(Granted, that is from prior to these most recent fiascos.)

Am I missing something, or is this a clear cut reversal the first time this law finds itself in front of the Supreme Court?

Legislation is mostly performance art there.

And the Texas state constitution has almost 700 amendments.

Until you add some teeth to "Congress shall pass no law" beyond wasting everyone's time, this is a largely symbolic gesture.

The supreme court tossed out the last "clear reversal" without a hearing.

All these new Texas laws will be ruled against, likely before the Supreme Court. It’s all for naught and likely going to cost Abbott his job. We’ll see how strong the Texas conservatives are but I think these laws have them divided. They were insanely unified during Trump’s era and that’s how we got here.

It’s performance art by politicians. Playing to the rabid fringe, even though you know it’s all gonna get tossed. And when it does get tossed, that will enrage them more and you can squeeze them again for more donations.

Problem is, it manages to do some real damage and really hurt some people in the meanwhile.

It probably helps him keep his job. At the moment Abbott doesn't really have an Democrat opponent. His biggest concerns are being primaried by more Trumpian politicians.

Social media companies have too much power. As Justice Clarence Thomas articulated, big social media platforms should be treated as common carriers (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-ri...). They’re not very different from your phone company or other utility. They are the new public square where civil liberties like free speech are most frequently exercised. Viewpoint discrimination on these platforms is bad for a liberal society, and plainly oppressive. Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. There are many ways in which they can be legally compelled to carry speech, as a UCLA Professor recently analyzed (https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and...).

> They’re not very different from your phone company or other utility.

Oh, but they are! My phone company makes no attempt to influence the content of my voice or text conversations, nor how I use my data plan. Facebook/Twitter do their very best to tailor what I see to keep me scrolling and “engaged.” If this is the new public square, the crack dealers are already selling, and in fact are the ones who built the square.

I think I like the idea of social media as common carrier. It would require vast changes in how their apps are designed though.

> Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws.

This seems like a bad idea, unless you want to elevate the status of political affiliation to that of religion, and expect violations of that protection to be enforced just as unevenly.

> Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws.

What's special about a political viewpoint? How do you even define "political viewpoint"? Is it different from a "religious viewpoint"? Is it different from a run-of-the-mill opinion?

If a leading politician is mostly shilling merchandise and asking for donations-to-nowhere, then what is the difference between political speech and spam?

It's hard to ignore how california and texas are being attacked and yet biden does nothing

We'll see if it helps stop the blatant partisanship or not.

Almost no chance of that. This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds.

AFAICT Republicans who tend to call for mandated content neutrality (protecting users by their political ideas) are ignoring the fact that there are multiple dimensions of TOS violations. If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same user for their calls for violence?

I’ve worked at a large social media company (one most people would not recognize). The loud users that get banned almost always play up the “I didn’t do anything wrong” card but the moderation department has the evidence that they very blatantly did violate the objective standards of the site. The problem is that the public doesn’t see the evidence that the moderation department does, so they are outraged after only looking at half of a ledger.

> If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same user for their calls for violence?

Let the judge decide... A company of that size should be stripped of that power

In theory I agree that almost all of this would be solved if the courts could work at the speed of social media. That’s a pipe dream though. There aren’t enough people with law degrees to throw at the problem, and we couldn’t afford it even if we did throw the problem at the courts.

> This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds.

On the other hand, freedom of association didn't stop the civil rights act.

But freedom of association is less clearly defined in the constitution. Maybe a better example are the many regulations on commercial speech that exist despite the 1st amendment.

The Civil Rights Act was bolstered by the 13A, 14A, and 15A. None of these necessarily protect anyone by their political party.

So blatant Facebook PR is trying to distract people from the fact that 8 of the top 10 posts each day are from Breitbart et al

Yes, "conservative" accounts get banned more often than "progressive" ones. Or, at least, that's how it may appear if your definition of "conservative" is dominated by racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, and homophobia. Which isn't entirely wrong, obviously: traditionally, the ideology that despised all deviations from the norm just came with a different label, fascism.

>The new law states social media platforms with more than 50 million users cannot ban people based on their political viewpoints.

With an exemption that large this doesn't seem too unreasonable. We don't let the phone company ban you for political speech in their platform (the phone call), do we?

Other comments about the phone company answered this better, but the phone company is not offering an attractive option to block all crackpot phone calls coming in.