Pinsof says companies facing such legal threats would have little reason to defend their users’ free speech if it helped them avoid lawsuits. “We have seen time and time again in different contexts that platforms are vulnerable to censorship pressure because they are afraid of being prosecuted,” says Pinsof. “So it’s easier to remove things than to potentially expose yourself to liability.”
Another section of the law would require ISPs to “make every reasonable and technologically feasible effort to block Internet access to any information or material intended to facilitate or support efforts to obtain an elective abortion or an abortion-inducing drug.” It also shields them from legal liability resulting from such takedowns, which Pinsof believes could further encourage companies to remove abortion-related content.
Platforms are currently looking at a Supreme Court case stating that tech companies can indeed be held liable for content promoted on their platforms. Any weakening of those protections could expose companies to additional legal risk in Texas under the proposed bill if they allow pro-choice content to be shared on their services. According to Pinsof, the law could be read as making it illegal to provide information about abortion “both for speakers themselves and for platforms.”
WIRED reached out to Twitter, Reddit, Meta, and TikTok to ask if laws like the Texas law would lead them to change their moderation policies for abortion-related content. None responded. However, experts say the platforms could preemptively start restricting content related to abortion.
Last year, WIRED found that Meta was already restricting certain abortion content on its platforms, regularly removing posts that referenced access to abortion pills under rules prohibiting the sale of “illegal or regulated goods.”
The Texas law could also have a major impact on search engines, making it more difficult for women to find accurate information about abortion services. So-called “crisis pregnancy centers” — run by anti-choice organizations — often use promoted results to get to the top of search results for abortion providers.
“There’s actual competition between pro- and anti-choice groups to win those slots at the top of Google’s search results,” said Callum Hood, chief of research at the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit that tracks disinformation. “There will be no alternative in search results other than what anti-choice groups have to say about abortion,” he says.
Neither Google nor Microsoft have responded to requests for comment about how or whether search results or ads may be changed or restricted in response to the Texas law.
Hood says he’s concerned that censorship could lead ISPs to decide that hosting abortion-related websites is too risky. ISPs have previously blocked websites for unauthorized material such as child pornography.
“The easiest thing they can say is just, ‘We’re not going to host any website related to abortion. Period,” says Hood. “It will create an incentive for them to just take simple steps to avoid ambiguity about whether or not they facilitate access to information about abortion-inducing drugs.”
Marty says that, if the bill passes, activists will devise ways to get around it, just as they did with previous restrictions. But she acknowledges that these strategies can still leave many women without vital information as digital information has become so important.
Pro-choice activists and educators sometimes use QR codes, which can be easily printed as stickers or posters and left unobtrusively in public places to alert people to abortion information. “Most activism has already focused on QR codes and other ways to provide informational links without the actual information being visible in text form,” she says. “But a QR code is also a whisper network. You should know that this is something to find information about.
Updated 4/14/2023, 3:10 PM EDT: An earlier version of this article incorrectly described part of the proposed Texas law as violating section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
