• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, Yesterday

Texas on Tuesday asked a federal appellate court to lift a block on a state law that restricts social media companies' ability to serve content and ads to teens younger than 18.

The block on enforcement, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman in Austin, undermines “Texas's compelling interest in protecting children,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argues in papers filed with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals -- considered the most conservative federal appellate court in the country.

The Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act (HB 18) requires social platforms to ask users their ages, and then deploy filtering technology to block "harmful" content to minors. The statute defines harmful content as including material that “promotes,” “glorifies,” or “facilitates” eating disorders, self-harm, substance abuse, and “grooming ... or other sexual exploitation or abuse.”

The act also prohibits targeted advertising to minors, without parental consent. Additionally, the measure separately requires social platforms to make “commercially reasonable” efforts to block ads to minors that “facilitate, promote, or offer a product, service, or activity” that's unlawful for minors in Texas.

The law drew two separate legal challenges last year -- one by the tech industry groups NetChoice and Computer & Communications Industry Association, and a second by a coalition including the group Students Engaged in Advancing Texas and the Austin-based agency Ampersand Group.

In September, Pitman blocked portions of the law in response to the suit by the tech groups. Specifically, he blocked enforcement of the provisions that would have required platforms to ask users their ages, and filter out “harmful” content to minors.

He said at the time that those provisions are likely unconstitutional because they're so broad and vague that they would allow the government to censor speech that's protected by the First Amendment.

“It is far from clear that Texas has a compelling interest in preventing minors’ access to every single category of information” covered by the statute," Pitman wrote.

At the time, he denied the groups' request to block provisions regarding targeted advertising. He said in the initial ruling that it wasn't immediately apparent to him that those provisions are unconstitutional, but he left open the possibility of blocking those restrictions in the future.

After that ruling came out, Students Engaged in Advancing Texas and Ampersand Group proceeded with a request to block the entire law.

They argued the restrictions on targeted advertising could prevent Ampersand Group from sending public service messages and information ads to teens about matters like fentanyl dangers, or signs of sex trafficking.

Cameron Samuels, executive director of Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, specifically argued that the group would like to use targeted ads to promote discussion of issues including advocating for the repeal of state law that restricts students' access to library books.

Pitman sided with the coalition and, in February, invalidated the restrictions on ad targeting.

“The targeted advertising requirements exclusively target speech, only a small portion of which, such as child pornography or defamation, falls outside First Amendment coverage,” he wrote.

He also noted that the ban on targeted advertising isn't narrowly tailored to the goal of protecting minors from potentially harmful ads.

Paxton's office is asking the 5th Circuit vacate that ruling and either allow the law to be enforced, or send the case back to Pitman with instructions to analyze the law again.

Among other arguments, Paxton says the statute's ban on content that “facilitates,” “promotes,” or “glorifies” content is not too vague to be enforced.

“Platforms like Instagram and Meta routinely use this kind of language to moderate identical content, confirming the terms’ clarity and workability,” he argues.

He adds that the public interest “favors child safety, a paramount societal goal, over plaintiffs’ speculative First Amendment concerns.”