5th Circuit blocks Texas law requiring websites to filter “harmful” speech

第五巡回法院阻止德克萨斯州要求网站过滤“有害”言论的法律

Texas cannot enforce a law’s requirement that websites block minors from seeing harmful speech, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled on Friday. 美国第五巡回上诉法院周五裁定，德克萨斯州不得强制执行一项要求网站阻止未成年人接触有害言论的法律。

Big Tech lobby groups challenged the Texas “law’s requirement that certain social media-based ‘digital service providers’ (DSPs) monitor and filter content accessible to known minors to prevent exposure to several categories of potentially harmful speech,” judges wrote. 法官在裁决书中写道，大型科技游说团体对德克萨斯州的这项法律提出了质疑，该法律要求某些基于社交媒体的“数字服务提供商”（DSPs）监控并过滤已知未成年人可访问的内容，以防止他们接触到几类潜在的有害言论。

In a 2-1 ruling in favor of the tech groups’ challenge, judges said the monitoring and filtering requirement is preempted by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996. 在一项以 2 比 1 的投票结果支持科技团体诉求的裁决中，法官表示，该监控和过滤要求已被 1996 年联邦《通信规范法》第 230 条所优先排除（preempted）。

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice challenged portions of the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act (SCOPE Act), which applies to websites and online applications that collect or process personally identifying information. 计算机与通信行业协会（CCIA）和 NetChoice 对《通过父母赋权保护儿童在线安全法》（SCOPE 法案）的部分条款提出了质疑，该法案适用于收集或处理个人身份信息的网站和在线应用程序。

The tech groups won a preliminary injunction from a district court. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed to the 5th Circuit but wasn’t able to convince judges to reverse the injunction that prevents enforcement of the monitoring and filtering rules. 这些科技团体从地方法院获得了初步禁令。德克萨斯州总检察长肯·帕克斯顿（Ken Paxton）向第五巡回法院提起上诉，但未能说服法官撤销该禁令，该禁令阻止了对监控和过滤规则的执行。

The district court held in August 2024 that the SCOPE Act’s monitoring and filtering requirement is preempted by Section 230’s prohibition on treating interactive computer services as the publisher or speaker of information provided by someone else. 地方法院在 2024 年 8 月裁定，SCOPE 法案的监控和过滤要求与第 230 条相冲突，因为后者禁止将交互式计算机服务视为他人所提供信息的发布者或发言人。

“CCIA and NetChoice have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their preemption claim, which is enough to support the district court’s granting of a preliminary injunction in their favor,” the 5th Circuit panel wrote. 第五巡回法院合议庭写道：“CCIA 和 NetChoice 已经证明其优先权主张在实质上胜诉的可能性很大，这足以支持地方法院做出有利于他们的初步禁令。”

The law “would have forced websites to censor broad, vaguely defined categories of lawful speech,” NetChoice said. “The 5th Circuit is right to keep it blocked. Parents, not the government, are best positioned to decide what is appropriate for their own families, and today’s ruling protects that fundamental right.” NetChoice 表示，该法律“将迫使网站审查广泛且定义模糊的合法言论”。“第五巡回法院阻止该法律是正确的。父母而非政府，才是决定什么适合自己家庭的最佳人选，今天的裁决保护了这一基本权利。”

Filtering mandate went too far

过滤指令走得太远

The famously conservative 5th Circuit appeals court has upheld several Texas laws imposing obligations on websites and online platforms. That includes a 2024 case in which it upheld an age-verification requirement imposed on porn websites. 以保守著称的第五巡回上诉法院此前曾支持多项对网站和在线平台施加义务的德克萨斯州法律。其中包括 2024 年的一起案件，该法院支持了对色情网站实施的年龄验证要求。

In Friday’s ruling, judges noted the difference between the age-verification requirement in the porn website case and the content-filtering rule in the new case. “Unlike the age-verification requirement we addressed in that case, [the SCOPE Act’s] monitoring and filtering requirement is all about filtering content, and is thus preempted,” they found. 在周五的裁决中，法官指出了色情网站案中的年龄验证要求与本案中内容过滤规则之间的区别。他们认为：“与我们在那起案件中处理的年龄验证要求不同，[SCOPE 法案的]监控和过滤要求完全是关于过滤内容，因此被优先排除。”

The 5th Circuit and other appeals courts “have interpreted Section 230 to provide DSPs with ‘broad immunity’ from ‘all claims stemming from their publication of information created by third parties,’” the 5th Circuit panel said. 第五巡回法院合议庭表示，第五巡回法院和其他上诉法院“已将第 230 条解释为赋予数字服务提供商（DSPs）‘广泛的豁免权’，使其免受‘所有源于其发布第三方所创信息的索赔’”。

The state law required websites to prevent known minors’ exposure to material defined as obscene under Texas law, and other content “that promotes, glorifies, or facilitates” suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, substance abuse, stalking, bullying, harassment, grooming, trafficking, and “child pornography, or other sexual exploitation or abuse.” 该州法律要求网站防止已知未成年人接触德克萨斯州法律定义的淫秽材料，以及其他“促进、美化或助长”自杀、自残、饮食失调、药物滥用、跟踪、欺凌、骚扰、诱拐、人口贩运以及“儿童色情或其他性剥削或虐待”的内容。

Paxton argued that the Texas law imposes no liability for harms from the content they host. The law is not preempted because it “imposes compliance duties, not publisher liability,” and aligns with the child-protection goals of Section 230, he argued. 帕克斯顿辩称，德克萨斯州的法律并未对网站托管内容造成的损害施加责任。他认为，该法律并未被优先排除，因为它“施加的是合规义务，而非发布者责任”，并且与第 230 条的儿童保护目标相一致。

Other parts of law can be enforced

法律的其他部分可以执行

5th Circuit judges didn’t buy Paxton’s argument. They said the law provides for enforcement against violations by the attorney general’s office and lets parents of minors bring actions for declaratory judgments and injunctions. 第五巡回法院的法官们并不买账。他们表示，该法律规定总检察长办公室可对违规行为进行执法，并允许未成年人的父母提起诉讼以寻求宣告性判决和禁令。

“Actions to enforce the monitoring and filtering requirement are claims stemming from DSPs’ actions as publishers, that is, from their monitoring, screening, and deletion of content, and are thus squarely preempted by Section 230,” the ruling said. 裁决称：“执行监控和过滤要求的诉讼，其本质是针对数字服务提供商作为发布者的行为，即对其监控、筛选和删除内容的行为提出索赔，因此完全被第 230 条所优先排除。”

Friday’s decision wasn’t a total loss for Paxton because the 5th Circuit found that a student group did not have standing to challenge the Texas law, which means other parts of the law can be enforced. 周五的裁决对帕克斯顿来说并非全盘皆输，因为第五巡回法院认定一个学生团体没有资格挑战德克萨斯州的法律，这意味着该法律的其他部分可以执行。

These require platforms to make users register their ages before creating accounts, to not display targeted advertisements to known minors, to make commercially reasonable efforts to prevent advertisers from targeting known minors with ads for illegal products or activities, and to verify that users are 18 or older if more than one-third of the content on the platform is obscene. 这些条款要求平台在用户创建账户前进行年龄登记，不得向已知未成年人展示定向广告，采取商业上合理的努力防止广告商向已知未成年人投放非法产品或活动的广告，并且如果平台上超过三分之一的内容是淫秽的，则必须验证用户是否年满 18 岁。

Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) alleged that students’ speech would be censored or that they would self-censor because of the law. Judges noted that the law “does not apply directly to them” and had not yet been enforced against platform operators when the students filed the complaint. “德克萨斯州学生进步参与组织”（SEAT）声称，由于这项法律，学生的言论会被审查，或者他们会进行自我审查。法官指出，该法律“并不直接适用于他们”，且在学生提起诉讼时，该法律尚未对平台运营商执行。

“In other words, the SEAT plaintiffs claim an injury in fact based on predicted censorship or a present chill, arising from someone else’s predictable response to the challenged law,” judges wrote. They decided that the group’s “fears of censorship based on indirect regulation are insufficient to support standing for a pre-enforcement challenge.” 法官写道：“换句话说，SEAT 原告声称的实际损害是基于预期的审查或当前的寒蝉效应，而这种效应源于他人对被挑战法律的可预见反应。”他们裁定，该团体“基于间接监管而产生的对审查的恐惧，不足以支持其在法律执行前提出挑战的诉讼资格。”

Trump-appointed judge dissents

特朗普任命的法官持异议

The judges on the panel were Reagan appointee Patrick Higginbotham, Trump appointee James Ho, and Biden appointee Dana Douglas. While the three judges unanimously ruled against SEAT, Ho dissented from the decision to block the monitoring and filtering rules. 合议庭的法官包括里根任命的帕特里克·希金博瑟姆（Patrick Higginbotham）、特朗普任命的詹姆斯·何（James Ho）和拜登任命的达娜·道格拉斯（Dana Douglas）。虽然三位法官一致裁定反对 SEAT，但何法官对阻止监控和过滤规则的决定持异议。

“The SCOPE Act isn’t preempted by section 230 for one simple reason: Because it regulates curation, not publication—first-party speech, not third-party speech,” Ho wrote. “So I would vacate the injunction in its entirety. Because the panel majority vacates the injunction only in part, I concur in the judgment in part and dissent in part.” Ho contended that curation “is speech that is distinct from the underlying content.” 何法官写道：“SCOPE 法案没有被第 230 条优先排除，原因很简单：因为它监管的是内容策划，而不是内容发布——即第一方言论，而非第三方言论。因此，我主张完全撤销该禁令。由于合议庭多数派仅部分撤销了禁令，我部分同意该判决，部分持异议。”何法官主张，内容策划“是一种区别于底层内容的言论”。