Declaring “[s]ocial media platforms have a First Amendment right to moderate content disseminated on their platforms,” a federal district judge has refused to allow Texas to go forward with its efforts requiring social media services to provide platforms for people who violate their terms of service.

The case, Netchoice v. Paxton, centers on Texas law HB 20, which explicitly bars social media services from deleting content and suspending or banning users who violate the company’s TOS.  Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee who sits as District Judge of the Western District of Texas, ruled that the poorly-written bill was too vague and too sweeping to go into effect.

Saying that the social media companies have a Constitutional right to determine their own editorial policies, Pitman pointed to the need for editorial discretion. “During the hearing, the State explained that a social media platform ‘can’t discriminate against users who post Nazi speech…and [not] discriminate against users who post speech about the antiwhite or something like that.’ Plaintiffs point out the fallacy in the State’s assertion with an example: a video of Adolf Hitler making a speech, in one context the viewpoint is promoting Nazism, and a platform should be able to moderate that content, and in 18 another context the viewpoint is pointing out the atrocities of the Holocaust, and a platform should be able to disseminate that content.”