Last week on Wednesday, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Appeals Court stayed the injunction against Texas’ social media censorship bill: “HB 20,” which was passed last September.

The bill states that “A social media platform may not censor a user, a user ’s expression, or a user ’s ability to receive the expression of another person based on: the viewpoint of the user or another person; the viewpoint represented in the user ’s expression or a user’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state.”

Additionally, “The law makes it possible for users or the state’s attorney general to sue online platforms that remove posts because they express a certain viewpoint.”

The law is aimed primarily at Facebook and Twitter, private companies, whom Texas has created the bill in response to conservative members taken off social media platforms. A social media company with up to 50 million monthly subscribers falls under the contents of the bill.

Opponents to the bill believe that this would pave the way for government to regulate free speech on social media platforms and decide what the private sector may or may not remove.

However, “proponents of HB 20 say it would prohibit social media companies’ ability to silence viewpoints on their platforms and allow users who were wrongly censored to seek recourse.”

“This prohibition applies only to users who reside in, do business in, or share or receive expression in Texas.” This has made tech companies consider limiting some access to Texas residents from their websites. But are also considering that course will further complicate the issue.

The bill was signed and put into Texas Law back in September. However, a US District Judge blocked the Bill in December, believing it violated private sectors rights in the First Amendment. The private sector is allowed per the Consitution and existing law to moderating speech conducted on their platforms.

Lobbyists for tech companies were excited about the injunction against the Texas bill. Yet, last Wednesday the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals removed the injunction. The strange part was the three-judge panel gave no constitutional reason for its decision. Instead, it allowed the law to continue in effect while it is being further considered.

The plaintiffs to the case, Netchoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association have filed the case to Justice Alito of the US Supreme Court. He might either give a judgment or present it to the US Supreme Court to get the entire panel to judge on it.

The Texas Bill is clear that private companies are not prohibited from removing all posts in Texas.

Instead, the Texas bill highlights the need to restrict some content that falls under what “the social media platform is specifically authorized to censor by federal law; subject of a referral or request from an organization… preventing the sexual exploitation of children and protecting survivors of sexual abuse from ongoing harassment…directly incites criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group…or unlawful expression.”

The current U.S. law states that social media platforms are private sectors. Thus, while the First Amendment cannot be abridged by the government, social media companies are not in the same boat. Since they are private entities, they can regulate what they are hosting on their sites, in compliance with U.S. Federal Law and obtaining the proper licenses.

Yet, social media is the modern-day public square. This case will be very interesting as it may lead us down conclusions as to what the government can and cannot regulate upon social media platforms.

[Story by Jacob Lehrer]