The 5th circuit reinstates Texas law that was previously found to violate the First Amendment. In a tweet, Paxton called the ruling a big win against big tech, adding, I look forward to continuing to defend the constitutionality of HB 20. The state law says that a social media platform may not sensory user based on the user's viewpoint and define sensor as block van remove de platform demonetized, de boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to or otherwise discriminate against. The Texas attorney general or users can sue social media platforms that violate this ban and win injunctive relief and reimbursement of court costs. In addendum, this Texas law also prohibits social media platforms from leaving the state of Texas. So this is the worst authoritarian near corporate fascist shot against free speech that we've seen in modern history. If you claim to be a free speech, absolutist, you're lying to yourself if you support this type of initiative. No one is claiming that the current communications decency act is perfect, it obviously needs some refinement how companies can kind of hide behind the CDA, especially what is it section section two 30, I've already spaced on what the sort of big contentious anyway. I've explained this before, and I feel like I need to keep reiterating freedom of speech also means freedom from government compelled speech. I know a lot of people like to make the argument that Twitter has become a public platform. Twitter is high visibility, but it's still a private company. Facebook is still a private company. So the state of Texas is trying to say our government can force speech onto these platforms. We are compelling them. We are forcing them to publish speech on private infrastructure that they disagree with. It has become a cornerstone of free speech law that the government can not force you to speak if you don't want to speak. The government, again, you're not going to get thrown in jail for speaking your mind. That's the First Amendment. That is a public protection. You have to face the consequences of your free speech, but you will not be thrown into jail just for sort of saying what's on your mind. The flip side of that is the government can not force you to say something you disagree with. That is a part through legal precedent that is a part of our free speech protections. So this thread here is, I'm sorry, this thread. This law here is one of the most anti business and anti consumer anti free speech pieces of legislation I've ever seen in my entire life. First of all, you can't be pro business and then say, we're not going to allow you to stop doing business with us. You have to do business with us or face legal penalties and we'll sue you and will initiate lawsuits. That can't happen. The constitutionality of that is already supremely suspect. But the other reason why I wanted to bring this up. Last week we talked about how ISPs had finally given up trying to fight net neutrality in the state of California. And we're still in gridlock. We're still in a deadlock at the FCC, where we're long overdue, trying to start the process of establishing a federal standard for net neutrality and title two regulation over the Internet. These articles, I feel are missing one critical small piece of this conversation. So I'm not picking on John brodkin here, excuse me. The judges struggle with basic tech concepts. Oral arguments were held on Monday this week and the judges seemed to struggle with basic tech concepts. Judges were skeptical of arguments made by tech industry group's net choice and the computer and communications and industry association, which sued Texas to block the law. 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. Judge Edith Jones, or I'm trying to find the quote. Your clients are Internet providers. They are not websites. So I need that I need that to ring just a little bit. One of the judges has called these individual Internet social media companies Internet providers. Okay. So in this right here, and especially in this chat, that sounds like a complete disassociation of how modern technology works, right? We all understand the relationship between an individual, a company that gets them Internet access, and then services that live on the Internet. One of the critical things that I think these articles have missed is currently. Our Internet is regulated as an information service. I think it's very telling that they're bringing up telephones. Because telephone infrastructure is regulated as a telecommunication service. Remember, all the doom and gloom, the ajit pai years of the FCC, nothing's going to change when we remove net neutrality. But the major push of the open Internet order. Was to regulate the Internet as a telecommunication service. Was to regulate as if it were a utility. Which it is. Your telephone service, your television service, that's regulated as telecommunication. The Internet is an information service. Telecommunication service, again, I'm being very.