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.

Industry groups filed suit to stop the law. They challenged it under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for violating free speech rights.

Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito were conservative justices. Justice Elena Kagan, liberal, said that she would not have granted the request of industry groups.

Texas’ Republican-led legislative passed and was signed by its Republican governor. This law was passed at a time when right-wing commentators as well as conservatives in the United States complain that “Big Tech” is suppressing their views. They cite Twitter’s suspension of former Republican President Donald Trump, shortly after an attack on the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6, 2021 by a mob made up of Trump supporters. The company also cited “the risk for further incitement to violence.”

The law is officially known as HB20 and prohibits any social media company with more than 50 million users per month from “censoring” them based on their “viewpoint.” Users or the Texas Attorney General can sue for enforcement.

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.