IANAL or a Federal judge, so perhaps my understanding is mistaken about this. That said, IIUC the First Amendment to the US Constitution states, in part:
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
That stricture (as well as all restrictions codified in the US Constitution, as amended) was extended to the several states by the 14th Amendment, which reads in part:
"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."
Long standing precedent and interpretation of the First Amendment has upheld the idea that not only is the government forbidden to abridge speech, they also may not force others to repeat or publish speech which those others do not wish to repeat or publish.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that Texas' HB20[0] (the law in question) is in conflict with the First Amendment.
Presumably, if Texas can force Facebook/Twitter/whoever (I'd note that the law includes email as well) to host speech they don't wish to host, then I can go to the Governor's mansion (or your house, if you live in Texas) and project any legal images/video/audio on the walls (gay, midget, furry porn comes to mind), and if I am prevented from doing so, the state has the right to sue the Governor (or you) to force the display of such content.
That's not the kind of world I want to live in. How about you?
The problem is the judges (and I guess Texas too since they created the law) are so detached from technology that they think websites are the same as common carriers like a phone company
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
That stricture (as well as all restrictions codified in the US Constitution, as amended) was extended to the several states by the 14th Amendment, which reads in part:
"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."
Long standing precedent and interpretation of the First Amendment has upheld the idea that not only is the government forbidden to abridge speech, they also may not force others to repeat or publish speech which those others do not wish to repeat or publish.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that Texas' HB20[0] (the law in question) is in conflict with the First Amendment.
Presumably, if Texas can force Facebook/Twitter/whoever (I'd note that the law includes email as well) to host speech they don't wish to host, then I can go to the Governor's mansion (or your house, if you live in Texas) and project any legal images/video/audio on the walls (gay, midget, furry porn comes to mind), and if I am prevented from doing so, the state has the right to sue the Governor (or you) to force the display of such content.
That's not the kind of world I want to live in. How about you?
[0] https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=872&B...