The US Supreme Court has again halted a controversial law that prohibits social networks from “censoring” posts based on views.

The law threatens to make it a crime to curb expressions of hate or intolerance online by networks and to point out publications that are demonstrably false.

Conservative politicians accuse Facebook, Twitter and other platforms of silencing their voices.

Social networks argue that content moderation decisions are based on factors such as the risks of damage they may cause in the real world.

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

Several people were killed during the riot and there was concern about how Trump could use social media to incite more violence.

The Texas state law in question prohibits platforms with more than 50 million users from vetting profiles based on political views.

The trade association NetChoice, whose members include Amazon, Facebook and Google, challenged the law and convinced a federal court in Texas to prevent its application until it is resolved if it conflicts with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. .

An appeals court sided with Texas and ruled in favor of the state of Texas, so the matter went to the Supreme Court, which upheld the original decision to put the law on hold while it decides whether it should be thrown out altogether.

Now the case returns to a Texas district court to evaluate the arguments and determine the constitutionality of the law.

In its original decision, the district court said social networks had the right to moderate content, and that a provision against disinformation warning labels even risked violating the internet companies’ right to free speech.

“Texas law violates the First Amendment because it forces social networks to post content they don’t want to post and because it prevents them from responding to posts they disagree with,” said attorney Scott Wilkens of the First Amendment Institute. from Columbia University.

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria