5th Circuit: Big Tech Can’t Use 1st Amendment To Censor Speech

The 5th Circuit says tech companies can’t use the 1st Amendment to censor speech

By: Andrea Widburg

On Friday, the Fifth Circuit released its decision in NetChoice v. Paxton, a case a trade association representing the big social media companies filed against a new communications law in the State of Texas. The law held that social media companies cannot censor views with which they disagree (invariably, views opposing Democrat actions and ideas). The tech companies argued that it violated their corporate free speech right to censor people on their platforms. The Fifth Circuit strongly disagreed, striking a huge blow in favor of Free Speech in America.

Tech companies used to be free speech zones. However, once they inveigled just about everyone in America away from their usual means of communication and onto their platforms—that is, getting them away from the traditional public square in favor of their own squares—the companies began to clamp down on any speech with which they disagreed. Over the years, they’ve disagreed with (and censored) people supporting Trump, opposing the Russia hoax, challenging the COVID narrative (everything from masks to hydroxychloroquine to lockdowns), opposing the transgender fiction, and wanting to learn about Hunter Biden’s hard drive, to name just a few disfavored views.

As you’ve gathered, the censorship only flowed one way: Big tech silenced anything that challenged a Democrat narrative. We’ve since learned that this was not a coincidence. Aside from their own loathing of all things Republican, the tech companies took marching orders from the federal government, whether it was working with the White House directly (which allowed the White House to bypass the First Amendment), believing the FBI’s false claim that Hunter Biden’s hard drive was Russian information, or (possibly) spontaneously passing private messages to the FBI. Mark Zuckerberg also spent $400 million privately funding election officials, dangerously blurring the lines between ostensibly impartial government agencies and private monies, and has made clear that he intends to game future elections for Republicans.

Texas decided to challenge the way the tech tyrants used their supremacy over the public square to silence speech. The legislature enacted HB 20, a statute regulating social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly users (in other words, the bug guys, like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube).

The statute holds that these social media platforms are common carriers, affecting the public interest, and having control over the marketplace of ideas. As such, said that statute, these platforms may not censor viewpoints, either by preventing people from expressing their viewpoints or preventing them from seeing others’ viewpoints—provided that the views expressed do not violate laws (child sexual exploitation, threatening violence, etc.). From a Free Speech perspective, it’s a very good law.

The tech companies had different ideas. In NetChoice v. Paxton, acting through trade associations, they argued that Free Speech has a very different meaning than actually allowing American citizens to speak freely in the internet arena, which has become the 21st-century public square. The tech plaintiffs advanced the novel theory that the constitutional right to Free Speech enshrined in the First Amendment includes an unwritten corollary that corporations controlling the publics’ means of communication have the right to silence such speech.

The court’s decision is 113 pages long, so I haven’t read it in any detail yet. As Reason noted, however, the introduction goes a long way to summing up just how good a ruling it is:

The implications of the platforms’ argument are staggering. On the platforms’ view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business. What’s worse, the platforms argue that a business can acquire a dominant market position by holding itself out as open to everyone—as Twitter did in championing itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.” Blue Br. at 6 & n.4. Then, having cemented itself as the monopolist of “the modern public square,” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017), Twitter unapologetically argues that it could turn around and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community, Oral Arg. at 22:39–22:52.

Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. Because the district court held otherwise, we reverse its injunction and remand for further proceedings.

That’s exactly the right argument—and I say that with no small amount of smugness because it’s what I’ve been saying for years. Presumably, the tech companies will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. However, the tightly argued logic I’ve seen as I’ve leafed through it, along with the incontestable constitutional principles and the uncontested facts strongly militate in favor of the Fifth Circuit’s position—that is, if one has any interest in maintaining America as a nation in which we honor the People’s inherent rights as set out in the Constitution’s first ten amendments.


The above article (The 5th Circuit says tech companies can’t use the 1st Amendment to censor speech) is republished here on TLB under “Fair Use” (see the TLB disclaimer below article) with attribution to the author Andrea Widburg and americanthinker.com.

TLB recommends that you visit the American Thinker for more great articles and info.


Read more articles by Andrea Widburg


Checkout TLBTalk.com:

Click Here to Visit the TLBTalk.com Site



Stay tuned to …


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.