By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court blocked Tuesday’s Texas law barring large social media platforms from banning users based upon “viewpoint.” It sided with two industry associations that argued the Republican-backed bill would make platforms “havens for the vilest expression imaginable”.

The justices, in a 5-4 decision, granted a request by NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which count Facebook (NASDAQ:), Twitter (NYSE:) and YouTube as members, to block the law while litigation continues after a lower court on May 11 let it go into effect.

To block the law, industry associations sued, challenging the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as a violation by companies of their free speech rights, which includes editorial control on their platforms.

Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas were the conservative Justices. Justice Elena Kagan was liberal.

Texas’ Republican-led legislative passed and was signed by its Republican governor. The law’s passage came as right-wing commentators and U.S. conservatives complain about how “Big Tech” suppresses their opinions. People cite Twitter as an example of the permanent suspension of Donald Trump (Republican ex-President) from its platform following the attack on U.S. Capitol, Jan. 6, 2021. Twitter cited the “risk of further incitement for violence.”

This law, also known as HB20 is intended to prohibit social media companies that have at least 50,000,000 monthly users from “censoring users based upon “viewpoint” and permits either the Texas attorney general or users to sue to enforce its provisions.

Greg Abbott of Texas signed the bill as a sign last September. It is wrong, and it will not be allowed in Texas.

According to industry groups, the government’s law wouldn’t allow them to restrict private speech. The groups stated that limiting platforms’ editorial control would force platforms to broadcast all kinds of offensive viewpoints, such as Russia’s propaganda, claiming its invasion of Ukraine was justified.

“Instead of platforms engaging in editorial discretion, platforms will become havens of the vilest expression imaginable: pro-Nazi speech, hostile foreign government propaganda, pro-terrorist-organization speech, and countless more examples,” they added.