In a groundbreaking development, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has decided to review two pivotal cases related to social media censorship laws in Texas and Florida. This decision could have a profound impact on the Texas Nationalist Movement’s ongoing class-action lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc., the parent company of Facebook. The lawsuit is part of a broader fight for Texans’ right to self-determination and free speech.
The SCOTUS Cases
The Supreme Court’s decision to examine the constitutionality of Texas law H.B. 20 and Florida law S.B. 7072 marks a significant moment in the ongoing battle over online censorship. These laws aim to regulate how large social media companies control content on their platforms. Specifically, Texas law H.B. 20 prohibits social media platforms with a user base of 50 million or more from blocking, removing, or “demonetizing” content based on the viewpoints expressed. The law was enacted to protect the free exchange of ideas and information within Texas, a fundamental interest recognized by the state.
TNM’s Legal Battle with Meta
The Texas Nationalist Movement has been at the forefront of the fight against digital censorship, particularly through its lawsuit against Meta. The suit alleges that Meta censored posts by TNM and its followers that contained specific website links, effectively stifling the organization’s ability to communicate its message. This issue has escalated to the point where TEXIT, the campaign for Texas independence, is now essentially on trial in this lawsuit. Read more about how TEXIT is now on trial in TNM’s lawsuit against Meta.
The Intersection of SCOTUS and TNM
The SCOTUS decision could set a legal precedent that directly affects TNM’s lawsuit. If the court upholds Texas law H.B. 20, it would strengthen TNM’s legal standing, providing a more robust framework to challenge Meta’s censorship. On the flip side, if the law is struck down, it could complicate our legal proceedings, requiring us to reassess our strategy. The outcome of these SCOTUS cases could either fortify or challenge the very foundation of our lawsuit, making it a critical juncture for TNM and its advocacy efforts.
Support from Texas Attorney General
In a show of support for TNM’s cause, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit. The brief criticizes Meta’s attempts to move the case to a federal court in California and praises the merits of the case. This high-profile backing adds another layer of significance to the lawsuit and could influence its outcome. Read more about Texas AG Ken Paxton’s amicus brief.
The Larger Context: Texas vs. White
The lawsuit has also brought the issue of Texas’ right to self-determination to the forefront, challenging the long-standing Supreme Court decision in Texas vs. White. TNM argues that this case, often cited as a barrier to Texas’ independence, is based on flawed legal reasoning. The lawsuit has opened the door for a renewed debate on Texas vs. White, potentially setting the stage for reevaluating this controversial decision. Read more about how Texas vs. White is up for debate.
The SCOTUS decision to review the Texas and Florida social media laws could be a watershed moment in the fight for digital free speech and self-determination in Texas. With the backing of the Texas Attorney General and a renewed focus on the constitutionality of Texas’ right to independence, the TNM is at the forefront of these critical issues. The outcome of the SCOTUS cases could either fortify TNM’s legal position or present new challenges, making this a pivotal time for the movement and for the state of Texas.
We encourage everyone to support our efforts in the lawsuit by making a contribution at DefendTEXIT.com.
