The text as introduced · 962 words
89R3518 SRA-D
By: Hughes
S.B. No. 1626
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to censorship of or certain other interference with
digital expression, including expression on social media platforms
or through electronic mail messages.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. The legislature finds that:
(1) although H.B. 20, as passed by the 87th
Legislature, 2nd Called Session, 2021, clearly applies to social
media platforms only in their role as common carriers in
facilitating public forums for public debate, the legislation has
been misunderstood to apply more broadly and therefore requires
clarification;
(2) an effective state remedy for social media
censorship is essential because:
(A) the federal government has massively used the
dominant social media platforms to abridge the freedom of speech;
(B) the combination of qualified immunity
impeding damages for past censorship and doctrinal limits on
injunctions against the breadth of future censorship leaves Texans
and other Americans without adequate judicial remedies for federal
censorship;
(C) dominant common carriers, especially when
given exaggerated dominance by federal privilege, pressure, and
coordination, must be available to persons of all points of view,
without discrimination; and
(D) the public square, which is now mainly on the
Internet and is enabled by the dominant social media platforms,
must be available to persons of all points of view, without
discrimination;
(3) damages are necessary for violations of H.B. 20
because, even though private enforcement of the legislation has
never been enjoined, the platforms subject to the legislation have
never complied with it;
(4) the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars
the federal government from "abridging" the freedom of speech or of
the press, not merely coercing or otherwise "prohibiting" it;
(5) states have a structurally essential role, dating
back to the Sedition Act of 1798, of protecting individuals from
federal censorship; and
(6) since H.B. 20 was originally enacted:
(A) abundant evidence has come to light that the
federal government has massively used dominant social media
platforms to abridge the freedom of speech;
(B) it has become clear that common carrier
legislation like H.B. 20 is the only sort of legal mechanism that
can promptly and effectively prevent federal censorship through the
social media platforms; and
(C) this state has a compelling and even
existential interest in adopting this law to prevent the federal
threat to the freedom of speech.
SECTION 2. Section 120.001(1), Business & Commerce Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(1) "Social media platform" means an Internet website
or application that is open to the public, allows a user to create
an account, and enables users to communicate with other users for
the primary purpose of posting information, comments, messages, or
images. The term does not include:
(A) an Internet service provider as defined by
Section 324.055;
(B) electronic mail , including direct messaging
or other electronically conveyed mail ; or
(C) an online service, application, or website:
(i) that :
(a) consists primarily of news,
sports, entertainment, or other information or content that is not
user generated but is preselected by the provider; or
(b) primarily provides banking,
financial, transportation, sales, or another service that is not a
communications service; and
(ii) for which any chat, comments, or
interactive functionality is incidental to, directly related to, or
dependent on the provision of the content or service described by
Subparagraph (i).
SECTION 3. Section 143A.005, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 143A.005. LIMITATION ON EFFECT OF CHAPTER ;
INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER . (a) This chapter does not subject a
social media platform to damages or other legal remedies to the
extent the social media platform is protected from those remedies
under federal law.
(b) This chapter does not apply to a social media platform's
newsfeed, the platform's own homepage, or any other service that
is:
(1) intended to convey a particularized message where
the likelihood is great that such a message would be understood by
the viewer;
(2) not a common carrier service;
(3) not strongly analogous to a common carrier
service; or
(4) not primarily providing transmission of users'
expression.
(c) Nothing in this chapter may be interpreted to permit a
social media platform to discriminate in the carriage of users'
expression by disseminating the platform's own commentary or
expression in a manner that delays or otherwise diminishes the
visibility of a user's expression, or delays or otherwise denies
equal access to a user's expression, or otherwise censors a user's
expression, on the basis of viewpoint in violation of this chapter.
SECTION 4. Section 143A.007(b), Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
(b) If the user proves that the social media platform
violated this chapter with respect to the user, the user is entitled
to recover:
(1) declaratory relief under Chapter 37, including
costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees under Section
37.009; [ and ]
(2) injunctive relief ;
(3) either:
(A) actual damages; or
(B) at the election of the user, statutory
damages in the amount of:
(i) $100,000 if the user or the user's
expression was censored in violation of Section 143A.002; or
(ii) $1,000 if the user's ability to receive
another person's expression was censored in violation of Section
143A.002; and
(4) reasonable and necessary attorney's fees .
SECTION 5. Section 143A.007(b), Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that
accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. A cause of
action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is
governed by the law as it existed immediately before the effective
date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that
purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2025.
Monitoring 