Federal court blocks Texas law forcing websites to filter 'harmful' speech for kids

A 5th Circuit panel told Texas on Friday that it can require porn sites to verify users' ages, but it cannot make websites filter what minors read. The line between those two rulings is Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, a 1996 federal statute that shields online platforms from being treated as the publisher of third-party content, not the First Amendment.

In a 2-1 decision, the New Orleans-based federal appeals court kept in place a preliminary injunction blocking Texas from enforcing the monitoring and filtering provisions of the SCOPE Act (Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act), a 2023 state law that targets "digital service providers" that collect personal information from minors. The court held the filtering mandate was preempted by federal law.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had argued the law imposed "compliance duties, not publisher liability," the same Section 230 carve-out some states have used to defend other online safety rules. The panel rejected that framing, writing that requiring platforms to monitor and filter user content effectively treats them as publishers of third-party speech, which is exactly what Section 230 forbids.

The challengers, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice, the trade and policy groups that represent major internet companies, had argued the law would force websites to censor "broad, vaguely defined categories of lawful speech." The panel's opinion made the same point when it distinguished the SCOPE Act from earlier Texas law.

The 5th Circuit is widely viewed as one of the most conservative federal appeals courts, and it has generally backed Texas's push to regulate online platforms. In 2024, the same court upheld a separate Texas law requiring age verification for porn sites. The panel distinguished that ruling on Friday, writing that the earlier case "addressed an age-verification requirement," while the SCOPE Act's "monitoring and filtering requirement is all about filtering content, and is thus preempted."

States can keep building age gates at the door. They cannot, on this reasoning, force platforms to police what minors see once they are inside.

The SCOPE Act's filtered categories were sweeping: obscene material, suicide and self-harm promotion, eating disorders, substance abuse, stalking, bullying, harassment, grooming, trafficking, and child pornography. Most of those categories would already be restricted or removed under existing federal law or platform policies. The legal fight was over whether Texas could force private companies to build filtering systems and face state enforcement if they failed.

The ruling is narrow. It affirms a preliminary injunction the Western District of Texas granted in August 2024, and it concerns only the monitoring and filtering provisions of the SCOPE Act. Other parts of the law, including expanded parental controls, data deletion rights, and default privacy settings for minors, remain enforceable. The case continues toward a final merits decision, and Paxton's office has not signaled whether it will seek en banc review or appeal to the Supreme Court.

NetChoice cast Friday's ruling as part of a national trend of courts blocking similar state laws. Similar child-safety statutes have been challenged in California, Arkansas, and Mississippi, with mixed results in the lower courts. The 5th Circuit's reasoning, that filtering mandates run into Section 230 but age-verification requirements do not, will now shape how statehouses draft the next round of bills and how tech groups pick their fights.

The next test is likely to come from a state that tries to thread the needle: a law that looks like age verification at the door but requires platforms to identify minors first in order to apply it. If that kind of bill reaches the 5th Circuit, the same panel's logic may not save it.