Conservative politicians accused of suppressing their voices on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms

Supreme court The United States returned to paralyze a controversial law that prohibits social network “Censored” posts based on ideas.

The law threatens to make it a crime to prevent the network from being put down expression of hatred Or pointing out online bigotry and posts that are clearly false.

Conservative politicians accused Facebook Twitter and other platforms to silence their voices.

las social network They argue that content moderation decisions are based on factors such as the risk of harm caused by the material in the real world.

former President Donald Trump His successor Joe Biden was banned from Facebook and Twitter after he was attacked by a mob of supporters on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to prevent him from being confirmed by Congress.

Several people were killed during the riots and there were concerns about how Trump might use social media to incite more violence.

state law Texas Bans profiles of over 50 million users from being vetoed based on political views in question.

Net Choice trade association, whose members include Amazon, Facebook and Googlechallenged that law and convinced a federal court in Texas to withhold its application until it is resolved if it conflicts with the Constitution’s First Amendment. Constitution from United States of America.

Appeal

an appeals court favored Texas The state of Texas ruled in favor, so the case went to the Supreme Court, which upheld the original decision to put the law on hold while deciding whether it should be thrown out entirely.

Now the matter is returned to the District Court Texas To evaluate the arguments and determine the constitutionality of the law.

The District Court, in its original decision, said that social network Content had the right to be moderated, and that a provision against propaganda warning labels also risked infringing media companies’ free speech rights. Internet,

“Texas law violates the First Amendment because it requires social networks to post content that they don’t want to publish And because it prevents them from reacting to positions they disagree with,” said Scott Wilkens, an attorney at Columbia University’s First Amendment Institute.