On Wednesday night, a federal ruling blocked a Florida law that would penalize social media corporations for banning politicians from speaking, striking a blow to conservatives who are still furious over former President Donald Trump’s suspension and allegations that Google’s Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are censoring Law. views from the wing.

In his ruling, U. S. District Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida said the law, which would have required social media corporations to allow expression even if it violated its rules, would likely be considered unconstitutional.

The tech industry defied the law, which will go into effect Thursday, saying it would violate the First Amendment rights of online businesses.

“Plaintiffs will most likely triumph over their claim that such legislation violates the First Amendment,” Hinkle wrote. “There’s nothing that can be cut and survive. “

Florida lawmakers passed the law after Facebook, Twitter and YouTube suspended Trump’s accounts following the Jan. 6 attack on the U. S. Capitol.

“This is my full-time job”: how Twitch has the go-to platform for creators to make money

“Alexa, let’s read”: Amazon’s AI assistant can read books with your kids, be informed to read

It was signed in May through Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, a best friend of Trump’s and imaginable 2024 presidential candidate, who defended the law as a mandatory crackdown on the unbridled force of social media companies.

A DeSantis spokeswoman planned to appeal.

“We are disappointed by Judge Hinkle’s ruling and disagree with his determination that the U. S. Constitution protects the censorship of the big technologies of certain Americans and the content of others,” press secretary Christina Pushaw said in a statement. “Governor DeSantis continues to fight for free speech and oppose discriminatory censorship through Big Tech. “

Under the law, the state can impose a $250,000 day-based fine on giant social media corporations if they delete a political candidate’s statewide account and $25,000 per day if they delete a local job search account. media corporations to tell users within seven days that they can be censored, giving them time to properly write posts.

Two groups of tech companies, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, said Florida seeks to censor free speech by forcing social media corporations to present speeches and speakers they disagree with.

His lawsuit alleges that Florida’s new law is a “blatant attack” on content moderation, the possible choices social media corporations make on a daily basis to protect the public and advertisers from pornography, incitement to terrorism, false propaganda spread through foreign actors, calls for genocide. or racial violence Array Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, fraudulent schemes, and other harmful, offensive, or illegal material.

“The U. S. judicial formula U. S. It’s designed for our constitutional rights, and today’s resolution is no different, making sure florida law politically motivated doesn’t force Floridians to submit to racial epithets, competitive homophobia, pornographic material, beheadings or other horrible content just to use the internet,” Carl SzaboArray, Vice President and General Counsel of NetChoice, said in a statement.

Legal experts also have the viability of the law.

Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, told USA TODAY that Florida’s law leads to demanding legal situations because some of the provisions of the new law are “manifestly unconstitutional. “

“The Supreme Court has made it transparent that publishers have the freedom to decide on the content they want to publish, and the bill blatantly seeks to deprive publishers of that freedom,” he said. “Florida citizens expect more from their legislators, and now they see their taxes spent protecting an indefensible bill that has never been passed. “