By Andrew Chung

(Reuters). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a Texas law prohibiting large social media companies to ban or censor users based on their “viewpoint” was invalid. It sided in two tech industry groups who argued that platforms would become “havens of vilest expression imaginable,” as the Republican-backed legislation.

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. 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. 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 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.

Industry groups claimed that the law of the state would not allow government to control 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.