Edge providers have asked a U.S. appeals court to block the implementation of a Texas law that regulates how those platforms can moderate their content, a move the computer companies frame as an existential threat to their business models.

That motion of stay filed en banc (full court) with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, whose members include Facebook (Meta), Google, Twitter and Amazon, among many others, after a panel of the same court paved the way for the law’s implementation.

That panel two weeks ago ruled that corporations do not have a “freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say,” and thus has paved the way for the Texas law (HB 20), which restricts how social-media giants moderate their content. 

Also: Court Told Texas Law Would Wreck Online Ad Platforms

The law, which passed a Republican-controlled legislature last year, “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.

The Supreme Court had stayed the implementation of the law until a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit made that decision. Now that the panel has weighed in, though, the law can take effect unless the 5th Circuit agrees to the CCIA/NetChoice stay request.

CCIA and NetChoice said they will appeal the panel decision to the Supreme Court, which they say is likely to hear it because it involves issues of great importance and because different appeals courts have ruled differently on the issue. Resolving such circuit splits is one of the reasons the Supreme Court agrees to hear appeals.

“Granting a stay will prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ member companies while the Supreme Court reviews the vital constitutional issues raised by legislation such as HB20,” they told the full 5th Circuit. “The majority opinion in this case creates a clear circuit split with the [11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] and misapplies the Supreme Court’s important First Amendment precedents.”

In a separate case, CCIA and NetChoice point out, the 11th U.S. Circuit ruled that websites have a First Amendment right to decide what speech they publish and their reasons for doing so, or not doing so.

The Supreme Court this week signaled it thinks the issue of online content moderation is one of great importance, agreeing to hear appeals of two decisions relating to the moderation of terrorist-related speech on social media.

Internet advertisers and others filed a friend of the court brief at the Supreme Court in support of NetChoice and the CCIA back when that court was staying the initial decision. Those advertisers and others said the law will irreparably damage online platforms as advertising vehicles.

“Forcing private companies to give equal treatment to all viewpoints on their platforms places foreign propaganda and extremism on equal footing with decent Internet users, and places Americans at risk,” CCIA president Matt Schruers has said of the law. “ ‘God Bless America’ and ‘Death to America’ are both viewpoints, and it is unwise and unconstitutional for the State of Texas to compel a private business to treat those the same.”

In fact, those computer companies have likened the law to the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine, which once imposed an affirmative obligation on broadcasters to present issues of public importance and to seek out opposing viewpoints on those issues. The demise of the doctrine in the 1980s is credited with giving rise to the conservative talk-radio boom. ▪️

Two dozen Texas cities have sued streaming giants Netflix, Hulu and Disney Direct-to-Consumer for not paying what the municipalities said are the millions in franchise fees that the streaming services owe them. A favorable decision could lead to millions more from other cities seeking more funds for municipal services.

According to one of the cities in the suit, which was filed in Dallas County, the others taking the streamers to court are  Abilene, Allen, Amarillo, Arlington, Austin, Beaumont, Carrollton, Dallas, Denton, Frisco, Fort Worth, Garland, Grand Prairie, Houston, Irving, Lewisville, McKinney, Mesquite, Nacogdoches, Pearland, Plano, Rowlett, Sugar Land, Tyler and Waco.

The cities are alleging that the streamers should be paying annual franchise fees back to 2007, as they said is required by the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). Those are the fees that cable/broadband operators provide that go toward city services.

“With this lawsuit, we hope to ensure streaming video companies’ compliance with their PURA obligations moving forward and also recoup unpaid franchise fees from the Disney, Hulu and Netflix streaming services as follow-on relief,” Rowlett Mayor Blake Margolis said in a statement, pointing out that the fees are a key source of city revenue.

Streaming services may indeed have big pockets, but they argue they are definitely not covered by PURA, which requires video service providers to pay a 5% franchise fee “if a video service’s programming is delivered via wireline facilities located at least in part in the public right of way.”

While a cable/broadband operator does indeed deliver facilities-based programming, streaming services have no facilities, but ride that operator’s facility —and its use of the public right of way — to the home. So, it is the cable/broadband provider that is the one providing the service to customers.

That argument notwithstanding, for its part Rowlett wants reimbursement and interest on fees dating back to 2007 for Disney, 2011 for Hulu and 2019 for Netflix.

“Disney, Hulu and Netflix have long withheld statutorily required payments to cities throughout Texas, depriving them of fees that help fund essential city services,” said suit co-counsel Steven Wolens, principal with law firm McKool Smith. “This case was filed on behalf of our municipal clients to ensure future compliance with PURA and recoup significant fees owed by some of the nation’s largest streaming services.” ■

The Supreme Court has blocked, for now, a Texas law that computer companies strongly oppose.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying they would have voted to allow the law to be enforced while the underlying challenge to the law is being adjudicated in a district court.

The law, which passed a Republican-controlled legislature last year, “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.

NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) filed an emergency petition with the High Court to prevent the enforcement of the law, which they say prevents online platforms from exercising editorial discretion over content and irreversibly tarnishing their businesses.

That was after a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a split 2-1 decision, reversed a lower court opinion and lifted a preliminary injunction against the law.

Computer companies called it a victory for free speech, but pointed out there is more work to be done. "While today’s victory is welcome news, we’re only halfway there  — our case will soon return to the district court, where we’ll proceed to arguments on the merits," NetChoice said in a statement. “And as this case proceeds, we await a ruling from the 11th Circuit in our parallel case against the State of Florida.”

“Texas’s HB 20 is a constitutional trainwreck — or, as the district court put it, an example of ‘burning the house to roast the pig,’ ” said NetChoice counsel Chris Marchese. “We are relieved that the First Amendment, open internet, and the users who rely on it remain protected from Texas’s unconstitutional overreach. Despite Texas’s best efforts to run roughshod over the First Amendment, it came up short in the Supreme Court,” Marchese said. “HB 20 will once again be enjoined and the case will proceed in the lower courts.”

“We are encouraged that this attack on First Amendment rights has been halted until a court can fully evaluate the repercussions of Texas’s ill-conceived statute,” CCIA president Matt Schruers said. “This ruling means that private American companies will have an opportunity to be heard in court before they are forced to disseminate vile, abusive or extremist content under this Texas law. We appreciate the Supreme Court ensuring First Amendment protections, including the right not to be compelled to speak, will be upheld during the legal challenge to Texas’s social media law.” ■

A U.S. District Court in Texas has blocked the Dec. 2 effective date of a state law that prevents “censorship“ by social media platforms based on viewpoint, according to the groups who sought that action.

The law will now not go into effect until the court has heard the underlying legal challenge to the law.

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which took the state to court over the law, had sought the injunction, arguing that the law would effectively ban content moderation and thus would allow "pro-Nazi speech, medical misinformation, terrorist propaganda, and foreign government disinformation" to be posted on social media sites without recourse by the platforms without facing civil suits.

There is a pretty high bar for granting such injunctions, including the likelihood that NetChoice and CCIA will win the underlying case on the merits, and that allowing the law to go into effect would cause harms not easy to undo.

The law, which passed Sept. 9, “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 Google 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.

The groups filed suit against a similar Florida law, which was ultimately ruled unconstitutional. 

Both the Texas and Florida legislatures are controlled by Republicans, many of whom have alleged that social media have been censoring conservative content and voices, pointing to bans on former President Donald Trump's accounts.

CCIA, whose members include from Amazon to Yahoo!, and NetChoice, whose members include, well, from Amazon to Yahoo!, said the Texas bill would “compel private companies to host everything from Nazi propaganda to anti-American extremism or risk being sued,” adding, ”The First Amendment protects citizens and private companies from being compelled to speak.“

"It exposes those platforms to the exact liability that Congress protected against in enacting Section 230. And it both regulates how the targeted websites disseminate speech to and from users around the globe—regardless of their connection to Texas—and specifically requires the websites to continue doing business in Texas," the groups had told the court back in September.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the federal law that generally provides immunity for third-party content posted to social media sites and other online platforms.

CCIA praised the court decision.

“This ruling upholds the First Amendment and protects internet users, said CCIA president Matt Schruers. "Without this temporary injunction, Texas’s social media law would make the internet a more dangerous place by tying the hands of companies protecting users from abuse, scams, or extremist propaganda. 

“Today’s outcome is not surprising. The First Amendment ensures that the Government can’t force a citizen or company to be associated with a viewpoint they disapprove of, and that applies with particular force when a State law would prevent companies from enforcing policies against Nazi propaganda, hate speech, and disinformation from foreign agents.” ■

Computer companies have fired another legal volley in their fight against state efforts to undercut their Sec. 230 immunity from civil liability for most third-party content on social media sites.

The latest volley was a motion for preliminary injunction filed Sep. 30 against Texas for a new law that allows Web users to sue edge providers over how they moderate content.

Trade group the Computer & Communications Industry Association joined with NetChoice to file suit against the law earlier this month, as they had against a similar Florida law.

But that was an underlying law suit. This week's move is to prevent the law--scheduled to go into effect Dec. 2--from being enforced while that underlying suit is being litigated.

There is a pretty high bar for granting a preliminary injunction, including likelihood of winning the case and irreparable harm if the law goes into effect.

Computer companies said the loss of their First Amendment freedom to moderate and curate content as they choose is clearly such an irreparable harm and that because such an abridgement is unconstitutional they are likely to win their case.

The law, which passed Sept. 9, “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 Google 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, whose members include from Amazon to Yahoo!, and NetChoice, whose members include, well, from Amazon to Yahoo!, said the Texas bill would “compel private companies to host everything from Nazi propaganda to anti-American extremism or risk being sued,” adding, ”The First Amendment protects citizens and private companies from being compelled to speak.“

Computer companies are suing Texas over a law that prevents social media censorship based on “viewpoint,” saying nothing is a clearer First Amendment violation than regulation based on viewpoint.

The bill, which passed Sept. 9, “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 Google 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.

Trade group the Computer & Communications Industry Association joined with NetChoice to file suit, as CCIA did against a similar Florida law, the CCIA pointed out — that law was ruled unconstitutional, but that decision has been appealed by the state.

Also Read: Cruz Says Either Bias or Sec. 230 Protections Must Go

Both the Texas and Florida legislatures are controlled by Republicans, many of whom have alleged that social media have been censoring conservative content and voices, pointing to bans on former President Donald Trump's accounts.

CCIA, whose members include from Amazon to Yahoo!, and NetChoice, whose members include, well, from Amazon to Yahoo!, said the Texas bill would “compel private companies to host everything from Nazi propaganda to anti-American extremism or risk being sued,” adding, ”The First Amendment protects citizens and private companies from being compelled to speak.“

CCIA said the law would put Texans at greater risk of being subject to "disinformation, propaganda and extremism."

The computer companies pulled no punches, saying the law makes the internet safer for bad actors, "whether that be Taliban sympathizers or people encouraging kids to eat detergent pods." And while Texas Republicans are nothing if not self-described patriots, CCIA said that "[b]y constraining businesses free speech rights, the Texas law puts anti-American rhetoric [including from Nazis and white supremacists] on equal footing with God Bless America."

The suit was filed in the U.S. Court District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Cable operators across the south and southwest are currently assessing the damage to their systems caused by Hurricane Laura, the storm that raged through parts of Louisiana and south Texas earlier this week.

According to reports, Laura made landfall on Aug. 27 at about 1 a.m. near Cameron, La., 35 miles from the Texas border, leaving a path of destruction with winds of up to 150 mph, heavy rains and flooding. At least six lives were lost in Louisiana. Cities and towns in the path of the storm -- one of the strongest hurricanes ever to hit the area -- are still assessing the damage. Some reports have as many as one million residents in Texas and Louisiana are without power. 

While it could have been worse  -- initial predictions called for storm surges of more than 20 feet and flooding as far as 40 miles inland, which didn’t happen  -- cable operators and municipalities continue to dig out of the damage from the storm.

At Sparklight, formerly Cable One, systems in Jasper and Sour Lake, Texas and in Shreveport and Monroe, Louisiana were affected by the storm. Sparklight said it is still in the process of assessing the damage. “Thankfully, and most importantly – all of our associates are accounted for and safe,” the company said in an email message.

Altice USA’s Suddenlink Communications has operations in Louisiana and Texas -- including the heavily hit Lake Charles, La. area -- and CEO Dexter Goei told employees in a memo that the company is currently assessing the damage. He added that Altice USA began making preparations for the storm early, ensuring that employees had the resources necessary to stay safe and ready themselves for restoration efforts. That included encouraging local employees to heed mandatory evacuation warnings, closing down and boarding up its local retail stores and other buildings, fueling generators and vehicles, placing out-of-state field teams on standby to assist, and more.

“While we are still waiting to gain access to many of the hardest hit areas, we know that hurricane-force winds have caused extreme damage and there will likely be a long road of recovery ahead for many of the communities we serve,” Goei said in the memo.

Altice USA added that it has dispatched resources to ensure customers are educated on its restoration efforts, and is in close coordination with local utilities and authorities so it can address any issues with its network when the power comes back. 

For its employees who have been displaced, experienced destruction of property or are facing hardship resulting from the storm, Goei noted the Altice USA Employee Disaster Relief Fund is available to provide financial assistance to employees who have been impacted by natural disasters. The program is funded by employee contributions, which are matched by Altice USA up to $50,000 annually.

Cox Communications said the storm represented a significant power outage in its Acadiana, La., system where its retail stores remain closed, adding that it too is assessing damage.  

“Once power is restored and it is safe for our employees, we’ll be working in neighborhoods as needed to reconnect customers,” Cox said in an email.

Comcast also is assessing the damage from the storm, adding that so far it has had power outages in areas like Shreveport and Monroe, La. and Little Rock, Ark. 

“Our teams are out today assessing plant and drop damage today where it’s safe to do so,” Comcast said. 

Robert Rodriguez has decided to base the production and corporate headquarters for his new English-language action-adventure channel, El Rey Network, near the home base of his Troublemaker Studios in Austin, Texas.

The start-up service, which already films its centerpiece program, From Dusk Till Dawn: The Series, in the Texas capital, committed to filming other scripted and unscripted content in the state. From Dusk Till Dawn will begin production on its second season later this year; El Rey Network's original series Matador will debut on July 15 but is produced in Los Angeles. The network said this will be the first time a general entertainment network has a formal production home in the Lone Star State.

El Rey's targeted 18-49 male audience includes in its core younger Latinos living in English-speaking households. The network said the choice of Texas accentuates the state's "identity as a beacon state for American Latino culture and entertainment."

"As a filmmaker and founder of El Rey Network, I can't imagine a more iconic and inspiring location for our production headquarters or for the filming of our upcoming projects," Rodriguez said in a release.

The network did not say whether or not the city or state offered financial incentives, or if specific job or spending commitments were made in return. But Gov. Rick Perry and Austin mayor Lee Leffingwell were both quoted in the release, with the mayor saying "Austin is home to creative, talented people who do pioneering, game-changing work, and Robert Rodriguez exemplifies our creative base of talent." Calls to state and city spokespeople were not immediately returned. (Update: Melissa Alvarado, public information officer for Austin's Economic Development Department, said the city did not offer any incentives. Neither did the state, said Rich Parsons, deputy communications director in Gov. Perry's office.)

El Rey Network was founded by Rodriguez and FactoryMade Ventures co-founders John Fogelman and Cristina Patwa, backed by Univision Networks & Studios, and launched this past March 11 on cable and satellite distributors including Comcast, DirecTV, Time Warner Cable (via a Univision affiliation deal) and Dish Network. It has a current base of about 40 million subscribers.

Pictured: Robert Rodriguez of El Rey Network and Austin mayor Lee Leffingwell in an El Rey Network photo.