5 ms·

As a private company, don't all of the mentioned platforms have the option to just boycott the state entirely? Just say no Texas IP addresses will receive acces

As a private company, don't all of the mentioned platforms have the option to just boycott the state entirely? Just say no Texas IP addresses will receive access, as to not trigger any frivolous lawsuits. I imagine if any single one of the mentioned 50M user companies threatened to pull out like this there would be such massive public outcry that this law would be immediately reversed. And for those that say that Texans are a large part of the userbase, I'll just mention that the EU(and others) Require various forms of "censorship" (hate speech, calls to violence...) So really it's most of the world, vs just Texas on this.

Miner49er 4y ago
> As a private company, don't all of the mentioned platforms have the option to just boycott the state entirely? According to the author of this article, no. "I haven’t even gotten to the bit that says that you can’t “censor” based on geographic location. That portion can basically be read to be forcing social media companies to stay in Texas. Because if you block all of your Texas users, they can all sue you, claiming that you’re “censoring” them based on their geographic location." I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure that argument would actually work in court, but it might?
dado3212 4y ago
The law forbids that, saying that > A social media platform may not censor a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person based on…a user’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state. Removing their ability to use the platform would be geographic censorship under the law.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  But considering the internet is a nation-wide thing, would the state even have jurisdiction? If you never employ in a state and actively prevent access to the website from said state's residents, are you even doing business there? Sure, if FB employed Texans who work remote, they can't avoid it, but if they had no physical or even virtual presence? Because, in order to sue an out-of-state entity, you need to sue across state lines. That takes it out of state court jurisdiction and puts it in federal court. And in federal court, only federal laws apply. Is there any Supreme Court precedent for this situation?
  - schnable 4y ago
    And what is the possible enforcement mechanism?
- kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
  What if they did it based on the user’s state explicitly, rather than their geographic location?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

Miner49er 4y ago

> As a private company, don't all of the mentioned platforms have the option to just boycott the state entirely? According to the author of this article, no. "I haven’t even gotten to the bit that says that you can’t “censor” based on geographic location. That portion can basically be read to be forcing social media companies to stay in Texas. Because if you block all of your Texas users, they can all sue you, claiming that you’re “censoring” them based on their geographic location." I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure that argument would actually work in court, but it might?

dado3212 4y ago

The law forbids that, saying that > A social media platform may not censor a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person based on…a user’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state. Removing their ability to use the platform would be geographic censorship under the law.

colejohnson66 4y ago
But considering the internet is a nation-wide thing, would the state even have jurisdiction? If you never employ in a state and actively prevent access to the website from said state's residents, are you even doing business there? Sure, if FB employed Texans who work remote, they can't avoid it, but if they had no physical or even virtual presence? Because, in order to sue an out-of-state entity, you need to sue across state lines. That takes it out of state court jurisdiction and puts it in federal court. And in federal court, only federal laws apply. Is there any Supreme Court precedent for this situation?
- schnable 4y ago
  And what is the possible enforcement mechanism?
kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
What if they did it based on the user’s state explicitly, rather than their geographic location?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]