Computer & Comm v. Paxton

Issue: Whether Texas House Bill 18's requirements that covered digital service providers monitor and block broadly defined categories of content accessible to minors violate the First Amendment as content-based and viewpoint-based prior restraints on protected speech, and whether those requirements are preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 230.

The district court enjoined Texas HB18's monitoring-and-censorship provisions on First Amendment and § 230 grounds, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed. In their appellees' brief to the Fifth Circuit, CCIA and NetChoice argue that HB18's requirements constitute impermissible prior restraints and impose content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions on protected speech that fail strict scrutiny because the State lacks a compelling interest in suppressing such speech and the law is neither narrowly tailored nor the least restrictive means available. Appellees further argue that § 230 preempts HB18 because the law treats platforms as publishers of third-party content, and that the law is also unconstitutionally vague.

The case presents a direct First Amendment challenge to state-mandated content filtering for minors—an emerging category of legislation enacted across multiple states—and the Fifth Circuit's ruling could establish binding precedent on whether such monitoring-and-blocking mandates survive strict scrutiny and on the scope of § 230 preemption of state child-safety internet laws.