By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) -A Texas law barring large social media platforms from banning users based upon “viewpoint” was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was 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 legislature passed the law and its Republican governor signed it. 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.”

The law, officially known as HB20 prohibits social media companies that have at least 50,000,000 monthly active users to act to “censor”, users based upon “viewpoint.” It allows users to sue the Texas attorney general for its enforcement.

Greg Abbott of Texas signed the bill as a sign last September. It is not right and 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.