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.

Every day, millions of us press the “order” button on our favorite coffee mobile application. When we arrive at the coffee shop, we expect that our chosen brew will be on the counter a few minutes later. It’s a personalized, seamless experience that we have all come to expect. What we don’t know is what’s happening behind the scenes. The mobile application is sourcing data from a database that stores information about each customer and what their favorite coffee drinks are. It is also leveraging event-streaming data in real time to ensure the ingredients for your personal coffee are in supply at your local store.

Applications like this power our daily lives, and if they can’t access massive amounts of data stored in a database as well as streaming data “in motion” instantaneously, you, and millions of customers, won’t have the in-the-moment experiences we all expect.

Keep Reading Show less
Jennifer Goforth Gregory
Jennifer Goforth Gregory has worked in the B2B technology industry for over 20 years. As a freelance writer she writes for top technology brands, including IBM, HPE, Adobe, AT&T, Verizon, Epson, Oracle, Intel and Square. She specializes in a wide range of technology, such as AI, IoT, cloud, cybersecurity, and CX. Jennifer also wrote a bestselling book The Freelance Content Marketing Writer to help other writers launch a high earning freelance business.

How the internet got privatized and how the government could fix it

Author Ben Tarnoff discusses municipal broadband, Web3 and why closing the “digital divide” isn’t enough.

The Biden administration’s Internet for All initiative, which kicked off in May, will roll out grant programs to expand and improve broadband infrastructure, teach digital skills and improve internet access for “everyone in America by the end of the decade.”

Decisions about who is eligible for these grants will be made based on the Federal Communications Commission’s broken, outdated and incorrect broadband maps — maps the FCC plans to update only after funding has been allocated. Inaccurate broadband maps are just one of many barriers to getting everyone in the country successfully online. Internet service providers that use government funds to connect rural and low-income areas have historically provided those regions with slow speeds and poor service, forcing community residents to find reliable internet outside of their homes.

Keep Reading Show less
Aditi Mukund
Aditi Mukund is Protocol’s Data Analyst. Prior to joining Protocol, she was an analyst at The Daily Beast and NPR where she wrangled data into actionable insights for editorial, audience, commerce, subscription, and product teams. She holds a B.S in Cognitive Science, Human Computer Interaction from The University of California, San Diego.

How I decided to exit my startup’s original business

Bluevine got its start in factoring invoices for small businesses. CEO Eyal Lifshitz explains why it dropped that business in favor of “end-to-end banking.”

"[I]t was a realization that we can't be successful at both at the same time: You've got to choose."

Photo: Bluevine

Click banner image for more How I decided series

Bluevine got its start in fintech by offering a modern version of invoice factoring, the centuries-old practice where businesses sell off their accounts receivable for up-front cash. It’s raised $767 million in venture capital since its founding in 2013 by serving small businesses. But along the way, it realized it was better to focus on the checking accounts and lines of credit it provided customers than its original product. It now manages some $500 million in checking-account deposits.

Keep Reading Show less
Ryan Deffenbaugh
Ryan Deffenbaugh is a reporter at Protocol focused on fintech. Before joining Protocol, he reported on New York's technology industry for Crain's New York Business. He is based in New York and can be reached at rdeffenbaugh@protocol.com.

The Roe decision could change how advertisers use location data

Over the years, the digital ad industry has been resistant to restricting use of location data. But that may be changing.

Over the years, the digital ad industry has been resistant to restrictions on the use of location data. But that may be changing.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, the likelihood for location data to be used against people suddenly shifted from a mostly hypothetical scenario to a realistic threat. Although location data has a variety of purposes — from helping municipalities assess how people move around cities to giving reliable driving directions — it’s the voracious appetite of digital advertisers for location information that has fueled the creation and growth of a sector selling data showing who visited specific points on the map, when, what places they came from and where they went afterwards.

Over the years, the digital ad industry has been resistant to restrictions on the use of location data. But that may be changing. The overturning of Roe not only puts the wide availability of location data for advertising in the spotlight, it could serve as a turning point compelling the digital ad industry to take action to limit data associated with sensitive places before the government does.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories