https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/09/new-texas-abortion-law-likely-unleash-torrent-lawsuits-against-online-education Skip to main content * About + Contact + Press + People + Opportunities * Issues + Free Speech + Privacy + Creativity and Innovation + Transparency + International + Security * Our Work + Deeplinks Blog + Press Releases + Events + Legal Cases + Whitepapers * Take Action + Action Center + Electronic Frontier Alliance + Volunteer * Tools + Privacy Badger + HTTPS Everywhere + Surveillance Self-Defense + Certbot + Atlas of Surveillance + Cover Your Tracks + Crocodile Hunter * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give + Membership FAQ * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give * Search form Search [ ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Email updates on news, actions, and events in your area. Join EFF Lists * Copyright (CC BY) * Trademark * Privacy Policy * Thanks Electronic Frontier Foundation Donate Electronic Frontier Foundation * About + Contact + Press + People + Opportunities * Issues + Free Speech + Privacy + Creativity and Innovation + Transparency + International + Security * Our Work + Deeplinks Blog + Press Releases + Events + Legal Cases + Whitepapers * Take Action + Action Center + Electronic Frontier Alliance + Volunteer * Tools + Privacy Badger + HTTPS Everywhere + Surveillance Self-Defense + Certbot + Atlas of Surveillance + Cover Your Tracks + Crocodile Hunter * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give + Membership FAQ * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give * Search form Search [ ] New Texas Abortion Law Likely to Unleash a Torrent of Lawsuits Against Online Education, Advocacy and Other Speech DEEPLINKS BLOG By David Greene, Cindy Cohn, Corynne McSherry, and Sophia Cope September 2, 2021 [medical-pr] New Texas Abortion Law Likely to Unleash a Torrent of Lawsuits Against Online Education, Advocacy and Other Speech Share It Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link [medical-privacy] In addition to the drastic restrictions it places on a woman's reproductive and medical care rights, the new Texas abortion law, SB8 , will have devastating effects on online speech. The law creates a cadre of bounty hunters who can use the courts to punish and silence anyone whose online advocacy, education, and other speech about abortion draws their ire. It will undoubtedly lead to a torrent of private lawsuits against online speakers who publish information about abortion rights and access in Texas, with little regard for the merits of those lawsuits or the First Amendment protections accorded to the speech. Individuals and organizations providing basic educational resources, sharing information, identifying locations of clinics, arranging rides and escorts, fundraising to support reproductive rights, or simply encouraging women to consider all their options--now have to consider the risk that they might be sued for merely speaking. The result will be a chilling effect on speech and a litigation cudgel that will be used to silence those who seek to give women truthful information about their reproductive options. We will quickly see the emergence of anti-choice trolls: lawyers and plaintiffs dedicated to using the courts to extort money from a wide variety of speakers supporting reproductive rights. SB8, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, encourages private persons to file lawsuits against anyone who "knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion." It doesn't matter whether that person "knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of the law," that is, the law's new and broadly expansive definition of illegal abortion. And you can be liable even if you simply intend to help, regardless, apparently, of whether an illegal abortion actually resulted from your assistance. And although you may defend a lawsuit if you believed the doctor performing the abortion complied with the law, it is really hard to do so. You must prove that you conducted a "reasonable investigation," and as a result "reasonably believed" that the doctor was following the law. That's a lot to do before you simply post something to the internet, and of course you will probably have to hire a lawyer to help you do it. SB8 is a "bounty law": it doesn't just allow these lawsuits, it provides a significant financial incentive to file them. It guarantees that a person who files and wins such a lawsuit will receive at least $10,000 for each abortion that the speech "aided or abetted," plus their costs and attorney's fees. At the same time, SB8 may often shield these bounty hunters from having to pay the defendant's legal costs should they lose. This removes a key financial disincentive they might have had against bringing meritless lawsuits. Moreover, lawsuits may be filed up to six years after the purported "aiding and abetting" occurred. And the law allows for retroactive liability: you can be liable even if your "aiding and abetting" conduct was legal when you did it, if a later court decision changes the rules. Together this creates a ticking time bomb for anyone who dares to say anything that educates the public about, or even discusses, abortion online. Given this legal structure, and the law's vast application, there is no doubt that we will quickly see the emergence of anti-choice trolls: lawyers and plaintiffs dedicated to using the courts to extort money from a wide variety of speakers supporting reproductive rights. And unfortunately, it's not clear when speech encouraging someone to or instructing them how to commit a crime rises to the level of "aiding and abetting" unprotected by the First Amendment. Under the leading case on the issue, it is a fact-intensive analysis, which means that defending the case on First amendment grounds may be arduous and expensive. The result of all of this is the classic chilling effect: many would-be speakers will choose not to speak at all for fear of having to defend even the meritless lawsuits that SB8 encourages. And many speakers will choose to take down their speech if merely threatened with a lawsuit, rather than risk the law's penalties if they lose or take on the burdens of a fact-intensive case even if they were likely to win it. The law does include an empty clause providing that it may not be "construed to impose liability on any speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution." While that sounds nice, it offers no real protection--you can already raise the First Amendment in any case, and you don't need the Texas legislature to give you permission. Rather, that clause is included to try to insulate the law from a facial First Amendment challenge--a challenge to the mere existence of the law rather than its use against a specific person. In other words, the drafters are hoping to ensure that, even if the law is unconstitutional--which it is--each individual plaintiff will have to raise the First Amendment issues on their own, and bear the exorbitant costs--both financial and otherwise--of having to defend the lawsuit in the first place. One existing free speech bulwark--47 U.S.C. SS 230 ("Section 230")--will provide some protection here, at least for the online intermediaries upon which many speakers depend. Section 230 immunizes online intermediaries from state law liability arising from the speech of their users, so it provides a way for online platforms and other services to get early dismissals of lawsuits against them based on their hosting of user speech. So although a user will still have to fully defend a lawsuit arising, for example, from posting clinic hours online, the platform they used to share that information will not. That is important, because without that protection, many platforms would preemptively take down abortion-related speech for fear of having to defend these lawsuits themselves. As a result, even a strong-willed abortion advocate willing to risk the burdens of litigation in order to defend their right to speak will find their speech limited if weak-kneed platforms refuse to publish it. This is exactly the way Section 230 is designed to work: to reduce the likelihood that platforms will censor in order to protect themselves from legal liability, and to enable speakers to make their own decisions about what to say and what risks to bear with their speech. But a powerful and dangerous chilling effect remains for users. Texas's anti-abortion law is an attack on many fundamental rights, including the First Amendment rights to advocate for abortion rights, to provide basic educational information, and to counsel those considering reproductive decisions. We will keep a close eye on the lawsuits the law spurs and the chilling effects that accompany them. If you experience such censorship, please contact info@eff.org. Related Issues Free Speech Medical Privacy Share It Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link Join EFF Lists Join Our Newsletter! Email updates on news, actions, events in your area, and more. Email Address [ ] Postal Code (optional) [ ] Anti-spam question: Enter the three-letter abbreviation for Electronic Frontier Foundation: [ ] Don't fill out this field (required) [ ] [Submit] Thanks, you're awesome! Please check your email for a confirmation link. Oops something is broken right now, please try again later. Related Updates image of piggy bank with duct tape over its mouth Deeplinks Blog by Marta Belcher | August 24, 2021 OnlyFans Content Creators Are the Latest Victims of Financial Censorship Update (8/26/21): Victory! OnlyFans has reversed course and suspended its plans to ban sexually explicit content, saying it has "secured assurances necessary" from banking partners and payout providers to enable it to continue to serve all creators. We hope that financial institutions will take note that it is unacceptable... Cat Astronaut Soars Through Cyberspace, Leaving a Glowing Rainbow Trail Deeplinks Blog by Jillian C. York | August 18, 2021 How LGBTQ+ Content is Censored Under the Guise of "Sexually Explicit" The latest news from Apple--that the company will open up a backdoor in its efforts to combat child sexual abuse imagery (CSAM)--has us rightly concerned about the privacy impacts of such a decision. As always, some groups will be subject to potentially more harm than others. A striped cat opines using a megaphone. Deeplinks Blog by Mukund Rathi, David Greene | July 29, 2021 Texas AG Paxton's Retaliatory Investigation of Twitter Goes to Ninth Circuit In an amicus brief filed July 23, EFF, along with the Center for Democracy and Technology and other partner organizations, urged the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to apply longstanding First Amendment law and protect Twitter from a retaliatory investigation by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. A striped cat opines using a megaphone. Deeplinks Blog by Jillian C. York | July 28, 2021 Disentangling Disinformation: Not as Easy as it Looks Body bags claiming that "disinformation kills" line the streets today in front of Facebook's Washington, D.C. headquarters. A group of protesters, affiliated with "The Real Facebook Oversight Board" (an organization that is, confusingly, not affiliated with Facebook or its Oversight Board), is urging Facebook's shareholders to ban so-called... [eff-pr-og] Press Release | July 27, 2021 EFF Sues U.S. Postal Service For Records About Covert Social Media Spying Program Washington D.C.--The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service and its inspection agency seeking records about a covert program to secretly comb through online posts of social media users before street protests, raising concerns about chilling the privacy and... FOIA Flashlight Legal Case EFF v. USPS - Social media monitoring (iCOP) The Postal Service has secretly combed through the online expression of social media users, raising concerns about chilling the privacy and expressive activity of internet users. EFF filed a Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) suit to learn more about the program.On April 21, 2021, Yahoo News reported that the... [congress-action_0] Deeplinks Blog by Christoph Schmon | July 15, 2021 Article 17 Copyright Directive: The Court of Justice's Advocate General Rejects Fundamental Rights Challenge But Defends Users Against Overblocking The Advocate General (AG) of the EU Court of Justice today missed an opportunity to fully protect internet users from censorship by automated filtering, finding that the disastrous Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive doesn't run afoul of Europeans' free expression rights. The good news is that the... Cat Astronaut Soars Through Cyberspace, Leaving a Glowing Rainbow Trail Deeplinks Blog by Rory Mir | July 2, 2021 EFF is Highlighting LGBTQ+ Issues Year-Round EFF is dedicated to ensuring that technology supports freedom, justice and innovation for all the people of the world. While digital freedom is an LGBTQ+ issue, LGBTQ+ issues are also digital rights issues. For example, LGBTQ+ communities are often those most likely to experience firsthand how big tech can... A striped cat opines using a megaphone. Deeplinks Blog by Aaron Mackey | July 1, 2021 Victory! Federal Court Halts Florida's Censorious Social Media Law Privileging Politicians' Speech Over Everyday Users A federal court on Thursday night blocked Florida's effort to force internet platforms to host political candidates and media entities online speech, ruling that the law violated the First Amendment and a key federal law that protects users' speech. We had expected the court to do so.The Florida... [eff-pr-og] Press Release | June 14, 2021 Unconstitutional Florida Law Barring Platforms from Suspending Politicians Should be Blocked, EFF Tells Court Tallahassee, Florida--The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Protect Democracy urged a federal judge to strike down Florida's law banning Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms from suspending political candidates' accounts, saying it unconstitutionally interferes with the First Amendment rights of the companies and their users, and forces companies to give politicians'... Join Our Newsletter! Email updates on news, actions, events in your area, and more. Email Address [ ] Postal Code (optional) [ ] Anti-spam question: Enter the three-letter abbreviation for Electronic Frontier Foundation: [ ] Don't fill out this field (required) [ ] [Submit] Thanks, you're awesome! Please check your email for a confirmation link. Oops something is broken right now, please try again later. Share It Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link Related Issues Free Speech Medical Privacy Back to top EFF Home Follow EFF: * twitter * facebook * instagram * youtube * flicker * rss Contact * General * Legal * Security * Membership * Press About * Calendar * Volunteer * Victories * History * Internships * Jobs * Staff * Diversity & Inclusion Issues * Free Speech * Privacy * Creativity & Innovation * Transparency * International * Security Updates * Blog * Press Releases * Events * Legal Cases * Whitepapers * EFFector Newsletter Press * Press Contact Donate * Join or Renew Membership Online * One-Time Donation Online * Shop * Other Ways to Give * Copyright (CC BY) * Trademark * Privacy Policy * Thanks JavaScript license information *