Unfair Park from p8 Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick also spewed anti- immigrant vitriol during a recent FOX in- terview. He warned of an “invasion” of refugees who will procreate to create “millions and millions and millions of new voters.” To Beirich, the Texas GOP stands out for its promotion of the conspiracy theory, es- pecially as it pertains to immigrants. “The Texas Republican Party is particu- larly radicalized into great replacement ide- ology,” she said, “and they’re using race-baiting to activate their base.” One online extremism watchdog re- cently found that the state has around 80% more searches for targeted violence, per capita, than the nation’s average, such as di- rections for bomb-making. The Anti-Defa- mation League also reported that Texas was home to the most incidents of white su- premacist propaganda in 2020. People can find dozens of videos on YouTube from one particular white su- premacist group parroting great replace- ment theory — without warning labels, Beirich said. Social media has worked to spread the theory, so some people don’t un- derstand it’s an untrue conspiracy rooted in white supremacy. It’s ridiculous to say white people are be- ing replaced by people of color, she added; they aren’t. Beirich doesn’t know why such theories are being allowed to spread online. She wishes that social media companies would hold influencers and elected officials to the same anti-hate standards as everyone else. “But they’re not, and it’s causing this cri- sis,” she said, “this horrible idea that’s con- nected to violence is spreading among the general populace — more so on the right, but as the poll shows, beyond that.” ▼ FIRST AMENDMENT FIGHT TO BE HEARD from banning users and removing content that expressed viewpoints the companies don’t like. The 5-4 decision temporarily stopped A any action under Texas’ HB 20, passed with overwhelming GOP support and signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in September. In the meantime, lower courts will con- tinue work on a lawsuit filed by Netchoice, an industry group working on behalf of social media companies including Twitter and Facebook. The law was driven by anger over what GOP leaders see as liberal bias in the compa- nies’ decision to ban content and users ex- pressing conservative points of view. Chief Justice John Roberts was joined by 10 10 Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Brett M. Kava- naugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Soto- mayor in reinstating a temporary injunction issued by a district court but stayed on ap- peal by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. SUPREME COURT BLOCKS TEXAS LAW INTENDED TO KEEP CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS ALIVE ON SOCIAL MEDIA. BY PATRICK WILLIAMS divided Supreme Court last week blocked a Texas law that would pre- vent large social media companies HB 20 would prohibit social media platforms fromremoving content based on the users’ views. The majority didn’t offer an explanation of its reasoning. Three other conservative justices — Sam- uel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — and liberal Justice Elena Ka- gan opposed reinstating the injunction. “Social media platforms have trans- formed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news,” Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion joined by Gorsuch and Thomas. “At issue is a ground-breaking Texas law that addresses the power of domi- nant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.” Underlying the case is a question of what social media companies are, exactly. Are they more akin to traditional newspa- per publishers and thus protected by the First Amendment from government diktats about what they publish? Or are they, as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton con- tends, more akin to a telegraph or tele- phone company, or a public square, where the state has greater leeway to act to ensure equal access to all? Neither analogy is perfect, said attorney W. Scott McCollough, who filed an amicus brief supporting the law on behalf of The Babylon Bee, a Christian-themed satiric website, and others. “These platforms are not like newspa- pers at all. They’re a completely different animal,” McCollough said. Neither are they the same as telephone companies and other “common carriers” that simply pass mes- sages along. HB 20 would prohibit social media plat- forms with at least 50 million monthly users from blocking, removing or “demonetizing” content based on the users’ views, according to the website SCOTUSblog. The law would also require the compa- nies to provide an “acceptable use policy” and “a biannual transparency report” to give users a clear understanding of what content might be blocked and create procedures that would allow users to appeal any decisions to remove content. Adding to the complexity of the question is the federal Communications Decency Act, which shields social media companies from being sued for libel for content created by their users while encouraging the compa- nies to remove obscene and other indecent material. Newspapers, magazines and other news media aren’t afforded the same protection from defamation lawsuits, but they also can’t be told by the government whom or what they must publish. McCollough said the companies are “try- ing to argue on both sides of the equation,” claiming the rights of publishers without the burdens. The Texas law’s supporters contend it is intended to be content neutral while pre- venting consumers reliant on social media from losing access for reasons that are opaque and arbitrary. “As a society and, I guess, a country, we’ve got to figure out what they are. … We’re going to have to come up with some sort of compromise here,” McCollough said. Transparency is key, especially if it en- courages competitors to challenge the dom- inance of the social media giants. Otherwise, we might avoid government meddling in the marketplace of ideas but end up ceding that same power to corporations with their own secret, unregulated agendas. While the Supreme Court’s decision is a set- back for HB 20’s supporters, McCollough pointed out that as the case continues, the pub- lic is likely to get more information about how these companies decide what viewpoints aren’t welcome and expose their biases. “This is not over,” he said, and Alito’s opinion suggested the same. The district court’s decision to grant the preliminary injunction originally and the Supreme Court majority’s decision to rein- state while the 5th Circuit writes its own opinion were premature, the justice wrote. “I reiterate that I have not formed a de- finitive view on the novel legal questions that arise from Texas’s decision to address the ‘changing social and economic’ condi- tions it perceives. … [But] Texas should not be required to seek preclearance from the federal courts before its laws go into effect,” Alito wrote. wiredforlego ▼ HEMP WRONG ARM OF THE LAW F AUTHORITIES DROP BOGUS FELONY CHARGE AGAINST LICENSED HEMP GROWER, BUT THE BUSINESS IS STILL CLOSED. BY JACOB VAUGHN or nearly a year, Hunter Robinson has been facing a felony charge for pos- session of marijuana, though he never really possessed any. Robinson and his busi- ness partner Skyler Purcell were licensed hemp farmers, growing and selling low- THC cannabis from an indoor farm they built in Navarro County. Their business was called Sky & Hobbs Organics. Hobbs is Rob- inson’s nickname. But when officers with the Navarro County Sheriff’s Office raided Sky & Hobbs early last June, they didn’t believe the busi- ness was legal even when Robinson pro- vided all of their state paper work showing they were a licensed business and that their product was legal. The sheriff’s officers seized their prod- uct, said it tested above the legal limit for THC and arrested Robinson on the felony charge. As of this month, however, the case against Robinson has been dropped. Prose- cutors moved to dismiss the charge on May 20. The sheriff’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment. “There is evidence to show that [Robin- son] was in possession of marijuana that contained more than .3% concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol, however, there is in- sufficient evidence at this time to prove that [Robinson] intended to possess, produce, or distribute, marijuana that contained more than .3% concentration of tetrahydrocan- nabinol,” the motion states. That’s essentially what Robinson and Purcell have been saying throughout last year. Law enforcement in Navarro County wouldn’t listen until Sky & Hobbs began speaking up about their case to the media and advocates in the hemp industry. “Although the financial impact/loss and months of ongoing legal processing has forced us to shut down Sky & Hobbs Organ- ics, LLC, until further notice, we’re beyond thankful that the state of Texas and Navarro County decided to dismiss Hunter’s pend- MONTH XX–MONTH XX, 2014 JUNE 9–15, 2022 DALLAS OBSERVER DALLAS OBSERVER | CLASSIFIED | MUSIC | DISH | MOVIES | CULTURE | NIGHT+DAY | FEATURE | SCHUTZE | UNFAIR PARK | CONTENTS | CLASSIFIED | MUSIC | DISH | CULTURE | UNFAIR PARK | CONTENTS dallasobserver.comdallasobserver.com
