home << Policy << auto texas says its unconstitutional content moderation law should still go into effect while we wait for appeal judge no that s not how this works
Sat, 11 Dec 2021
Texas Says Its Unconstitutional Content Moderation Law Should Still Go Into Effect While We Wait For Appeal; Judge: 'No, That's Not How This Works'
Furnished content.
Last week, the district court Judge Robert Pitman wrote an excellent ruling tossing out Texas' silly content moderation law as clearly unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. As was widely expected, Texas has appealed the ruling to the 5th Circuit (undeniably, the wackiest of the Circuits, so who knows what may happen). However, in the meantime, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also asked the lower court to have the law go into effect while waiting for the appeals court to rule!A stay is also supported by the widely recognized principle that enjoining a state law inflictsirreparable harm on the state, and that the public's interest is aligned with the state's interest andharm. Plaintiffs, in contrast, will not be irreparably harmed if a stay is granted. This is evidenced by the fact that (1) their supportive members stated they either already comply with aspects of thelaw or could not explain how the law would be burdensome in practice; and (2) Plaintiffs' othermembers, filing as amici in opposition to the Preliminary Injunction, have demonstrated no harmwill occur by enforcement of H.B. 20. For all these reasons, as further set forth below, a temporarystay while the Fifth Circuit considers the merits of this Court's Preliminary Injunction iswarranted. It is really incredible:The Attorney General has also raised questions neverconsidered by the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court as to common carriage and the FirstAmendment. Correspondingly, the Attorney General has demonstrated a likelihood of success onthe merits regarding Plaintiffs' claims. While this Court may have rejected the Attorney General's arguments, it did so by relying on readily distinguishable First Amendment case law and givingdispositive weight to a novel fact: whether the entity screen[s] and sometimes moderate[s] orcurate[s] user generated content.Therefore, given the novel nature of Plaintiffs' claims and the substantial support for theAttorney General's arguments, the Court of Appeals should have an opportunity to consider theseissues before the injunction is implemented. Basically, "even though we lost easily, we really made the better arguments, so therefore you should let the law go into effect." It's nonsense.Remember, the key reason that the judge blocked the law from going into effect was because it so obviously violates the 1st Amendment, so letting the law go into effect fundamentally would violate 1st Amendment rights. Texas' argument here that blocking the law from going into effect "inflicts irreparable harm on the state" is positively bizarre. "If we can't violate the 1st Amendment rights of websites, then we're irreparably harmed" is a dumb argument. The plaintiffs in the case, NetChoice and CCIA fired back with the proper "LOL, wut?" opposition brief, though most of that focused on Paxton wanting the other parts of the case to continue to move forward in the district court while the appeal is happening (and basically to get into the intrusive discovery process).The judge wasted little time in rejecting Paxton's nonsense:The State largely rehashes the same arguments this Court rejected in its Order. The State'snew argumentthat the preliminary injunction is overbroadalso asserts, again, that HB 20 is notunconstitutional. (Id. at 13). However, the Court already found that Plaintiffs are likely to establishthat Sections 2 and 7 of HB 20 are unconstitutional and, as a result, fashioned a narrow, preliminaryinjunction. The Court is also not persuaded by the State's contention that preliminarily enjoining theenforcement of Section 2which contains disclosure requirementswas too broad a remedybecause one of Plaintiffs' members happens to already satisfy several disclosure requirements. (Id.at 13). Whether one of Plaintiffs' members makes a business decision to publish certain disclosures,even if a few of those disclosures align with Section 2's requirements, does not impact this Court'sdecision that the State cannot constitutionally enforce Section 2's many requirements imposed onsocial media platforms. Accordingly, the Court declines to stay its Order. It also sides with NetChoice in staying the other parts of the case until after the appeal.To preserve court resources and for judicial efficiency, whatever the posture of this casewhen it returns to this Court, the Court will exercise its discretion to stay this case and preserve itscurrent posture In other words, no, Paxton, you're not likely to succeed, and if you do, we can take up the issue then...
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 11-Dec-2021
path: /Policy | permalink
comment...
home << Policy << auto texas says its unconstitutional content moderation law should still go into effect while we wait for appeal judge no that s not how this works
|
|