A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court has lifted a preliminary injunction against a Texas law tech companies say unconstitutionally prevents online platforms from exercising editorial discretion based on viewpoint.

That is according to the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which said a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had sided with the state of Texas, which had challenged the injunction imposed by a Texas U.S. District court judge back in December.

CCIA and NetChoice filed the lawsuit challenging the law in May of last year.

Also: Big Tech Fires Latest Legal Volley at Texas Social Media Law

That appeals court decision means the law could go into effect while that underlying lawsuit by computer companies is adjudicated.

"As a result of today’s order, Texas could soon seek to enforce its 'Fairness Doctrine for the Internet' against leading digital services, which invites unwarranted and unnecessary governmental intrusion into Americans’ online experience," the CCIA said.

The law, which passed a Republican-controlled legislature September 9, 2021, “prohibits an interactive computer service from censoring a user, a user’s expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of another person based on … the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It also requires large social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to disclose how they manage content, to publish an acceptable use policy that users can find telling them what content is acceptable, to publish quarterly transparency reports, and to have a complaint system in place for violations of its policies.

CCIA said the order lifting the injunction did not go to the merits of the appeal and had no written decision accompanying it.

“This unexplained order contravenes established First Amendment law," said CCIA President Matt Schruers. "No option is off the table. We will do what is necessary to ensure that the free market, not government fiat, decides what speech digital services do and do not disseminate.”

Both Republicans and Democrats have been critical of Big Tech, but often for different reasons. Republicans argue that social media sites have censored protected conservative speech, while Democrats generally support what they see as weeding out disinformation, misinformation, and hate speech. Democrats' issues with Big Tech are more about privacy, algorithmic discrimination, lack of sufficient child protections, and not enough weeding out of dangerous speech. ■

House Republicans have called on acting FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel to denounce in no uncertain terms efforts by House Democrats to pressure video distributors over their carriage of Fox News, Newsmax TV and OANN.

Also Read: House Democrats Pressure Distributors

That came in a letter to Rosenworcel Wednesday (Feb. 24) in advance of a hearing later Wednesday called by those House Democrats and looking into traditional media's role in promoting disinformation and extremism. The Republicans' letter also followed one from a pair of powerful Democrats (see below) asking major cable and online distributors to defend their carriage of the above networks.

Of that letter to a dozen distributors, the Republican's called it an attempt "to pressure these companies to block certain conservative media outlets disguised as congressional oversight.

In their letter, House Energy and Commerce Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Communications and Technology Republican Subcommittee Leader Bob Latta (R-Ohio) said the Democrats were advocating for government-sanctioned censorship and said Rosenworcel needed to defend Free Speech and a free press by "unequivocally denouncing" the Democrats' efforts.

"As Acting chairwoman of the Commission, it is incumbent upon you to use your position to preserve and protect our fundamental freedoms that are protected by the First Amendment. You can, and must, denounce any attempts by government officials to use their power to threaten a free press at such an important time in our Nation’s history," they wrote. 

Also Read: FCC's Carr Says Dems Are Trying to Censor Newsrooms

"We demand you stand on the side of free-speech and an independent press and publicly express your opposition to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine immediately," they said. "That is the FCC doctrine that required media outlets regulated by the FCC to seek out opposing viewpoints on controversial topics of public importance. Democrats have periodically threatened to restore it--the FCC deep-sixed it in 1987--particularly as a response to the rise of conservative talk radio.

"We also request that you denounce the recent attacks on the First Amendment by House Democrats and provide us a written response outlining in detail the steps you will take to uphold your prior commitments to free speech and a free press and how you intend to protect these principles."

Earlier this week, Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, both California Democrats, both members of the powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee, wrote to those dozen cable, satellite and streaming companies calling on them to better combat disinformation--which they principally identified as Fox, Newsmax and OANN--and asked the whether they were going to continue to carry those outlets and, if so, why? The letters came in advance of the  hearing Wednesday in the House Energy & Commerce Committee entitled “Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media.”

Free State Foundation president Randolph May is sounding the warning bell on a possible effort to extend the discredited broadcast "fairness doctrine" to the internet. 

The doctrine, which the FCC scrapped in 1987, required broadcasters to seek out and air viewpoints on issues of public importance and air opposing views. The doctrine has not been enforced since then, but was only taken off the books in 2011 after a campaign to formally expunge it led by then-commissioner Robert McDowell. 

Related: Sen. Manchin Bemoans Demise of Fairness Doctrine 

May tweeted Tuesday (June 2): 

"Perhaps it was inevitable that advocates of Internet regulation would go from advocating "net neutrality" to public utility regulation to "fairness doctrine for the Internet" a la @RoKhanna below. This is misguided and would violate the #FirstAmendment. @AjitPaiFCC @mikeofcc."

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reportedly told Politico that the doctrine should be revived to protect online speech decisions from billionaire tech leaders, and instead have the FCC insure rights of reply and that "blatant falsity" is not protected. 

That came in the wake of President Donald Trump's call for the FCC to get involved in regulating social media.

It was a Republican President--Ronald Reagan--who foiled a Hill effort to revive the fairness doctrine after the unanimous 1987 FCC decision to abolish it.