Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Signs Bill Banning Social Media from Censoring Conservatives

Fact checked
Texas governor signs bill banning social media companies from censoring conservatives

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed a bill banning social media giants from censoring users on their platforms based to their political beliefs.

The new law protects users who wish to express an opinion not sanctioned by the liberal elite in Silicon Valley. The law states that Big Tech giants must not ban users ‘simply based on their political viewpoints.’

It targets companies with at least 50 million users in the United States – including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, and would allow residents to sue the companies if they find themselves banned or censored.

‘Social media websites have become our modern-day public square,’ Abbott declared after signing the bill into law on Thursday.

‘They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely – but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas.’

‘That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas.’  

Dailymail.co.uk reports: Conservatives have accused these social media giants of stifling their voices and disproportionately targeting them over liberal and Democratic users.

The social media platforms, though, have consistently defended themselves against such accusations.

The new law comes months after former President Donald Trump was booted from Facebook and Twitter, when a group of his supporters breached the Capitol in January in an attempt to protest and prevent Joe Biden from taking office.

Twitter claimed that it took Trump off the site over concerns the then-president would use social media to incite violence following the attack.

But under the new Texas law, it is illegal for social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly active users to ban people from their site based on their political viewpoints, and prevents the companies from demonetizing users or removing their posts.

It would also require social media companies to be transparent about their content moderation policies and make reports about any posts they remove, according to the Washington Examiner, as well as build a complaint system on their websites.

And it would only let social media networks ban hate speech if it involves ‘specific threats of violence,’ Ars Technica reports. 

 ‘It is now law that conservative viewpoints in Texas cannot be banned on social media,’ Abbott said upon signing the legislation.

The bill initially failed earlier this year when Democrats flooded the state legislature to stall the passage of what they deemed to be controversial partisan bills, but it was revived in a special session in July and passed through the state legislature at the end of August.

Similar bills are now being considered in Utah, North Dakota and Wisconsin. 

It was also expected to run afoul of Constitutional rights of private businesses to decide what is voiced on their platforms.

The Texas law argues that social media platforms function as ‘common carriers,’ and should be forced to host all users, according to the Washington Post

The idea was popularized by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas earlier this year, who suggested in June that social media companies could be regulated like common carriers, such as phone companies, which face specific regulations due to the importance of the services they offer.

‘At this point, a small handful of social media sites drive the national narrative and have massive influence over the progress and developments of medicine and science, social justice movements, election outcomes and public thought,’ State Rep. Briscoe Cain said when he initially presented the bill on the House floor. 

But in June, a federal judge blocked a Florida law from taking effect that would have allowed the state to punish social media companies for banning politicians or political candidates from their platforms, according to CNET.

In that case, the judge found that the law’s prohibition on de-platforming individuals may violate the companies’ right to free-speech, and that the legislation on a whole is ‘viewpoint-based.’

The judge added that much of the bill’s text was ‘wholly at odds with accepted constitutional principles. 

Some Free Speech advocates now say the Texas law will do the same.

‘This bill abandons conservative values, violates the First Amendment, and forces websites to host obscene, antisemitic, racist, hateful, and otherwise awful content,’ said Steve DelBianco, president of NetChoice trade association.

‘Moderation of user posts is crucial to keeping the internet safe for Texas families, but this bill would put the Texas government in charge of content policies.’

15 Comments

  1. They post antisemitic comments and foul comments and horrible comments all the time Especially horrible murderous comments and especially anti semitic comments What they don’t publish is the truth about them. Or anything. And BTW Trump is taking a class action against Facebook Twitter and Google and is inviting everyone who feels abused by them to join in. Trump 45.

    • But the lawyers will muddy the waters so much. Really its Vanguard who are the major share holders and they really control it all The entire Internet in aegal situation clearly set up from the start with the intention to ensure that they can publish any lies, any dirt any filth about their enemies whilst making sure their enemies can’t do the same to them, that is can’t tell the truth about them.

  2. Social media companies are not involved in speech. They are involved in carrying other people’s speech and should ensure it is carried.

    • As long as it isn’t just abusive filth or rubbish or foul language or silly usual kill hem
      all Kill k the shills, its all the Jews usual neo nazi party propagandas. All aparently without any concern from the rule of law Vanguard corporation Google et al.

        • They wouldn’t suspend comments on Weinstein Epstein or Maxwell. And Cosby got out mainly because if their BLM party and no doubt large cash payments to his lawyers. But no cash will save Weinstein Epstein or Maxwell. No anti semitic racist JLM defense will work for them.

  3. Satan’s Children 60 minutes Australia 1989 I believe Watch it and wonder what became if Teresa. Where is she now How long did she live The producer and presenter left 60 minutes not much layer and basically disappeared from the publics eye Why?

    • And NB the grandmother went to jail I think from memory but no one else No police interest in uncovering the house or any of the perpetrators Just granny. Case closed. Get the picture about the rule of law.?

      • And notice that Boris Johnson has just closed down police investigations into pedophilia because they’re too expensive to pursue. Meanwhile the rile of law had decided that the summons served in Andrew for that ridiculous matter, where Guiffre was possibly suing for up to 136 million for damages, has been declared illegal Where’s Teresa’s millions Where are the good lawyers who represented her? Can’t be found. Or any if the other thousands and THOUSANDS REAL victims of REAL pedophilia over decades and decades now?

        • And now online the news source with the latest reports has currently suspended comments on the Andrew case in the interests of honesty. I think was there sentiment. Suspended comments anyway is some interests.

          • And the really interesting thing is Andrews pedophilia isn’t even all owed to be a criminal case She has had to take a civil matter Do its not even in Police hands Isn’t that unique in these cases By rule of law. Since when is rape and or pedophilia not a criminal law matter?

          • Just like Dominions alleged election theft, despite zteumos making it criminal somehow once he wasn’t President very quickly list its criminal law status and immediately reverted to being a civil case. So no police investigation at all. How convenient for them. And no news coverage about it either. Not about the law per se Just the propagandas. Because that old adage that says you know who rules over you by who you can’t cricise isn’t the Jews or the billionaires but is the law.

          • And everyone should be equal before the law And although I think the Guiffre case is spurious at best and deceitful at worst and shouldn’t be allowed, I also believe that the matter should be treated the same for anyone in Andrews position, not just Andrew. Anyone in similar circumstances should get the identical treatment from the law. The law shouldn’t be fickle.

  4. How many other people are fed up with only really ever being able to read news sites from America England or their home nation on the alleged world wide Web? How many other people are fed up with only having Disqus censoring almost every discussion site or word press or Spot M and those 3 all being again from the same source? When are we going to get freedom and a world wide Web that’s isn’t totally controlling deceiving propagandas and basically nothing except left wing white Anglo American propagandas day and night from cradle to. Grave And that includes blm that they cooked up to attack Trump.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.