I’ve predicted we'd see these kind of inconsistencies before—e.g., with the South Carolina abortion-speech bill. But I'd assumed the inconsistencies would run across state lines; we're pretty far along in the speedrun to have a single state with directly inconsistent carriage and filtering obligations in its own laws. Of course, they'll just reconcile it by interpreting this bill as an abortion carveout to the #CommonCarriage bill.

You might wonder how a proposed Texas law requiring ISPs to block abortion websites is consistent with Texas’s #CommonCarriage law for social media sites, and part of the answer is that the social media law specifically exempts ISPs. The other part of the answer is that on a long enough political time horizon there is no inconsistency or hypocrisy between simultaneous filtering and carriage mandates because the endgame is fascistic control of speech. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/texas-republican-wants-isps-to-block-a-wide-range-of-abortion-websites/

Interrupting your #Section230 programming to report that Uncommon Carriage, my piece on the history of #CommonCarriage and its likely role in the next season of SCOTUS Internet Law Adventures, will be appearing in the next volume of the Stanford Law Review! Indebted and grateful to a bunch of folks for helpful conversations, feedback, and support, including Mastadonians @daphnehk @evelyndouek @AnnemarieBridy @tnarecha @arozenshtein @Margotkaminski @jkosseff @marklemley https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4181948

Happy to report that my newly revised Uncommon Carriage piece is out on SSRN with bonus DLC treatment of the Fifth Circuit's bizarre treatment of #CommonCarriage doctrine and what it means for the upcoming #SupremeCourt #NetChoice #FirstAmendment apocalypse! Coming (hopefully) soon to a #law review near you! (H/T @marklemley for the fun new title!) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4181948