Key facts
- The 5th Circuit blocked a Texas law requiring websites to filter "harmful" speech for minors.
- The court ruled the filtering requirement is preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
- The decision was a 2-1 ruling in favor of challenges brought by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice.
- The law required filtering of content promoting suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, substance abuse, stalking, bullying, harassment, grooming, trafficking, and child exploitation.
- Other parts of the law, including age verification for certain platforms, can still be enforced.
- A dissenting judge argued that content curation is distinct from publication and thus not preempted by Section 230.
The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has blocked a Texas law that would have required websites to filter "harmful" speech accessible to minors. In a 2-1 decision, the judges found that the law's monitoring and filtering requirements are preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides broad immunity to online platforms for content posted by third parties.
The law, known as the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act (SCOPE Act), was challenged by tech lobby groups CCIA and NetChoice. They argued that the mandate forced websites to censor lawful speech and that parents, not the government, should decide what content is appropriate for their children.
The court distinguished this ruling from a previous case where it upheld an age-verification requirement for porn websites, stating that the current law's focus on content filtering directly conflicts with Section 230's protections for publishers and speakers. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had argued that the law imposed compliance duties rather than publisher liability, but the court disagreed, noting that enforcement actions would stem from the platforms' actions as publishers.
However, the ruling was not a complete loss for the state, as the 5th Circuit determined that a student group, Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT), did not have standing to challenge other provisions of the law. These provisions, which include requirements for age verification and restrictions on targeted advertising to minors, can still be enforced.
Judge James Ho, appointed by President Trump, dissented from the majority's decision to block the filtering rules. He argued that the law regulates "curation," which he considers distinct from "publication" of third-party content, and therefore should not be preempted by Section 230. The majority, however, stated they were applying existing court precedents.