The proposal to block Texans from accessing abortion information, introduced by three male Republican representatives, is the most far-reaching attempt to date to limit the ease with which people learn about abortion access in the US. But it is not without precedent. Arizona has banned advertising for abortion services on its books since 1873. Other states, including Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, and California, have restrictions about the publicity of the procedure.
Free speech is generally protected in the US under the First Amendment to the Constitution, while tech platforms have successfully argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 means that they cannot be held responsible for the content posted by users.
However, the bill being debated in Texas could essentially circumvent at least some of these protections by recruiting citizens to control information about abortions. Instead of the government cracking down on the content, citizens would bring cases in civilian courts, with potential targets including social platforms and ISPs that host websites or social posts offering abortion information.
Pinsof says that companies facing such legal threats would have little incentive to defend their users’ free speech if it helped them avoid litigation. “We have seen time and time again in different contexts that platforms are vulnerable to censorship pressure because they fear being sued,” says Pinsof. “So it’s easier to remove things than potentially expose yourself to liability.”
Another part of the law would require ISPs to “make all reasonable and technologically feasible efforts to block Internet access to information or material intended to assist or facilitate efforts to obtain an elective abortion or abortion-inducing drug.” It also protects them from legal liability resulting from such removals, which Pinsof believes could further encourage companies to remove abortion-related content.
The platforms are looking at a case in the Supreme Court which argues that tech companies can, in fact, be held responsible for the content promoted on their platforms. Any weakening of that protection could expose companies to additional legal risk in Texas under the proposed bill if they allowed pro-choice content to be shared on their services. Pinsof says the law can be interpreted as making the provision of abortion information “illegal both for the speakers themselves and for the platforms.”
WIRED reached out to Twitter, Reddit, Meta, and TikTok to ask if laws like the Texas bill would induce them to change their moderation policies on abortion-related content. None responded. However, experts say platforms could preemptively start limiting abortion-related content.
Last year, WIRED found that Meta was already restricting some abortion content on its platforms, regularly removing posts that referenced access to abortion pills under rules that prohibit the sale of “illegal or regulated goods.”
The Texas bill could also have major implications for search engines, making it harder for women to find accurate information about abortion services. So-called “crisis pregnancy centers,” operated by anti-choice organizations, often use promoted results to rise to the top of searches for abortion providers.