A judge was sure Twitter isn’t a website. Now tech law could get messy.

Three federal appeals court judges seemed to struggle with basic issues while deciding whether Texas' censorship ban should be allowed to proceed.

Texas State Capitol

The judges in the Texas case seemingly resisted, or needed coaching on, the tech policy status quo when it came to Sec. 230.

Photo: Silver Ringvee/Unsplash

A panel of three federal appeals court judges on Monday seemed to struggle with basic tech concepts, and the result could signal an unexpected victory for conservative critics of the legal approach underpinning modern social media.

The judges presiding over the hearing in a New Orleans courtroom were weighing whether to clear the way for a Texas law that was designed to punish social media services for alleged anti-conservative bias.

At the urging of two Big Tech trade groups, a federal district court had previously paused the law, finding — as many courts have before — that government actions to force private actors to adopt a particular political view violate the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Texas then appealed its loss, leading to Monday’s hearing, during which one judge suggested that Twitter isn’t even a website and another wondered if phone companies have a First Amendment right to kick people off their services.

“Your clients are internet providers,” Judge Edith Jones told the lawyer for the plaintiffs, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. “They are not websites.”

The two trade groups that are suing represent Big Tech platforms such as Google, Meta and Twitter, which are not internet access providers the way that broadband companies such as Verizon or AT&T are.

Yet the confusion persisted. At one point, Judge Andrew Oldham suggested that if the tech platforms succeeded, it would allow phone companies to kick off users.

“Under your theory, could Verizon decide that they’re going to overhear every phone call … and when they hear speech they don’t like, they terminate the phone call?” Oldham said.

Telephone companies have for decades been designated as “common carriers,” meaning they are required by law to “carry” any and all phone content without discrimination. You can make a phone call to whomever you want, and the phone company can’t pick and choose on your behalf — and wiretap laws ordinarily (though not always) prevent telecom companies from listening in.

For a very brief time, internet service providers such as Comcast and Verizon were also considered common carriers. The Federal Communications Commission in 2015 adopted a rule classifying them as such, but it was short-lived. The commission then reversed that rule during the Trump administration, in 2017.

Oldham appeared to be sympathetic to Texas’ view that the platforms should also be treated as common carriers. Designating which services must serve all customers is complex and, as the 2015 and 2017 net neutrality fight highlighted, politically fraught. Historically, lawmakers and regulators have applied similar rules to telephone networks, electrical utilities and other businesses that may be subject to significant government regulation, have major market power, oversee vast infrastructure or hold themselves out equally to all comers.

By contrast, Congress explicitly created law, known as Section 230, allowing platforms to remove content without fear of lawsuits, and courts have repeatedly upheld companies’ rights to create and enforce terms of service that prohibit certain content and conduct. Tech and legal experts say treating platforms as common carriers would force companies to host the most vile speech.

Oldham also called it “extraordinary” that, under the current legal approach to social media companies, they could decide to ban liberal speech as well.

“Its new ownership … could just decide that we, the modern public square of Twitter … will have no pro-LGBT speech, period, full-stop, end-of-story?” Oldham said, seemingly gesturing to Elon Musk’s expected takeover of Twitter.

Oldham — who, like all the judges on the panel, was a Republican appointee — appeared to be echoing a view held by some conservatives about the Supreme Court’s description of social media in 2017 as sometimes amounting to “the modern public square.” Many on the right have suggested that the U.S. highest court endorsed a view that Americans have a right to access platforms like Twitter as a basic matter of free speech. But the phrase occured in a decision striking down government limits on access to social media, not company limits on users or content, and the Supreme Court has even more recently held that private actors get to make decisions over content even when they face far more government regulation than social media.

The judges in the Texas case seemingly resisted, or needed coaching on, the tech policy status quo when it came to Sec. 230.

Jones appeared to confuse internet service providers (broadband and wireless companies) with interactive computer services more than once. The latter is a legal term of art, used in Sec. 230, that refers to the category of companies that includes social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. Sec. 230 immunizes such companies from legal responsibility for most content that users post, explicitly allowing them to take down or leave up content as they see fit.

Conservatives have often blamed these moderation powers for what they say are major social media companies’ efforts to silence right-wing figures and speech, making the provision a frequent target of Republican ire. These threats have come even as judges from all political orientations, up to the Supreme Court, have largely found the services’ rights to decide what speech goes up on — or comes down from — social media platforms derive from the First Amendment, not Sec. 230.

Sec. 230 does, however, deal with the distinct but related issue of how platforms should be treated in a lawsuit over users’ speech. The judges at Monday’s hearing may need to contend with Sec. 230 if they want to uphold the Texas statute, which allows for the attorney general and users to sue when platforms “censor” users.

The judges’ skepticism of the platforms’ position and claims about tech policy law were unusual, but don’t necessarily signal a particular outcome. Probing questions are the point of hearings, and the judges also suggested some issues with Texas’ position. Jones in particular seemed to doubt the basis for the state’s claim that the social media services could be treated as common carriers.

If the panel does decide to overrule the lower court’s injunction and allow the law to proceed, however, the tech companies have appeal options or could eventually pursue a trial. An ultimate decision endorsing Texas law, though, could set the approach of the federal appeals court apart from those of other courts in the U.S. — a phenomenon known as a circuit split that makes it much more likely the Supreme Court will intervene.


An IPO may soon be in Notion’s future

Notion COO Akshay Kothari says there’s room to grow, aided by a new CFO who knows how to take a company public.

Notion has hired its first chief financial officer: Rama Katkar.

Photo: Courtesy of Notion

It’s been a year since Notion’s triumphant $275 million funding round and $10 billion valuation. Since then the landscape for productivity startups trying to make it on their own has completely changed, especially for those pandemic darlings that flourished in the all-remote world.

As recession looms, companies looking to cut costs are less likely to spend money on tools outside of their Microsoft or Google workplace bundles. Enterprise platforms are bulking up and it could spell trouble for the productivity startups trying to unseat them. But Notion COO Akshay Kothari says the company is still aiming to build the next Microsoft, not be the next Microsoft. And in a move signaling a new chapter of maturity, Notion has hired its first chief financial officer: Rama Katkar, Instacart’s former VP of finance.

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Securing the Enterprise

Securing the enterprise

There’s no let-up in the surge of cyberattacks against businesses. But shutting down the hackers will require many enterprises to evolve their strategy.

In today’s enterprise, “identity and security are very merged.”

Illustration: iStock/Getty Images Plus; Protocol
the Protocol team
Protocol focuses on the people, power and politics of tech, with no agenda and just one goal: to arm decision-makers in tech, business and public policy with the unbiased, fact-based news and analysis they need to navigate a world in rapid change.

How neobanks are helping consumers game credit scoring

The CFPB says it is closely monitoring secured credit cards offered by neobanks.

Regulators are scrutinizing neobanks' card offerings.

Photo: Oscar Wong/Moment/Getty Images

About one in six Americans has a credit score below 619, according to the CFPB. Another 23% have too thin a credit file to score or no file at all. That puts them in a credit trap: To build credit, these consumers need someone to give them a line of credit with which they can demonstrate good financial habits. But with scores that low, few lenders are prepared to offer them anything.

Neobanks say they can solve the problem through a new twist on secured credit cards. But regulators are already scrutinizing their offerings.

Keep Reading Show less
Veronica Irwin

Veronica Irwin (@vronirwin) is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol covering fintech. Previously she was at the San Francisco Examiner, covering tech from a hyper-local angle. Before that, her byline was featured in SF Weekly, The Nation, Techworker, Ms. Magazine and The Frisc.


Steel decided World War II. Chips will decide whatever is next.

“Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology” foreshadows the coming battle between nations over semiconductors.

“Chip War” outlines the nature of the coming battle over semiconductors, showing how the power to produce leading-edge chips fell into the hands of just five companies.

Image: Scribner; Protocol

“World War II was decided by steel and aluminum, and followed shortly thereafter by the Cold War, which was defined by atomic weapons,” Chris Miller, a professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, writes in the introduction to his latest book. So what’s next? According to Miller, the next era, including the rivalry between the U.S. and China, is all about computing power.

That tech rivalry and the story of how the chip industry got from four to 11.8 billion transistors are all part of Miller’s book, “Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology,” which comes out Oct. 4. “Chip War” outlines the nature of the coming battle over semiconductors, showing how the power to produce leading-edge chips fell into the hands of just five companies: three from the U.S., one from Japan, and one from the Netherlands.

Keep Reading Show less
Hirsh Chitkara

Hirsh Chitkara ( @HirshChitkara) is a reporter at Protocol focused on the intersection of politics, technology and society. Before joining Protocol, he helped write a daily newsletter at Insider that covered all things Big Tech. He's based in New York and can be reached at hchitkara@protocol.com.

Latest Stories