Yelp Asks Court To Stop Texas AG Ken Paxton From Suing Them For Warning Users That Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Scams

from the fucking-hypocrite dept

To hear Texas legislators (and the 5th Circuit) view the world, it is apparently wholly unconstitutional to share information from the government with websites in any manner that might pressure them in how they moderate, yet at the same time, the government is absolutely free to compel companies to post messages that they want on websites… and, apparently, now to force companies NOT to post messages that they don’t want.

How do you square all this? You don’t, unless the fundamental principle is “it’s okay when the GOP does it, and not okay when Democrats do it.” But if anyone is claiming that Texas and the 5th Circuit are embracing free speech, they’re stupid or lying.

The latest example of this blatant hypocrisy/authoritarian “it’s okay when we do it” tendency comes as (still indicted) Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sending a threat letter to Yelp demanding that Yelp no longer accurately describe “crisis pregnancy centers” as venues that do not provide abortions.

As you may recall, anti-choice activists have been setting up bullshit “crisis pregnancy centers” around the country as a sneaky and underhanded way to trick pregnant women who think they’re going to get advice on all their options (including abortion) to basically be put in a high pressure environment designed to talk them out of abortion.

There has been tremendous controversy over these centers, and a war of words from both sides of the political aisle. Democrats have complained about Google and Yelp directing people to these CPCs when they’re looking for abortion providers, and Republicans have been threatening companies for accurately explaining the realities of CPCs.

Back in February, still indicted Texas AG Ken Paxton sent a threat letter to Yelp proving that he does not (even a tiny bit) care about free speech. In that letter he complained about the message that Yelp posted when someone looked at the page for a CPC. The message from Yelp warned people that such CPCs provided very limited services and might not have actual medical professionals on site.

The proper response from Yelp would have been to tell Paxton to take his censorial demand and shove it, but instead they decided to modify their warning in the hope that it might appease the still indicted attorney general of Texas. The new warning just notes that these CPCs do not offer abortions or abortion related services.

This is entirely accurate information and Yelp has a 1st Amendment right to post what it wants here.

But not according to the censorial Ken Paxton who sent another complaint letter to Yelp about the new warning. And, in response, Yelp has now gone to court in California (where it is based) to have the court tell Paxton to stop this clear violation of Yelp’s 1st Amendment rights.

This lawsuit seeks to prevent Defendant Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (“Attorney General”) from punishing Plaintiff Yelp Inc. (“Yelp”) for publishing truthful information about businesses that offer pregnancy-related counseling to the public. See Ex. 1. The Attorney General—who disagrees with the decision to publish this information—has announced his intent to sue Yelp, as soon as September 29, for stating that crisis pregnancy centers “typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.” This threat targets truthful speech fully protected by the First Amendment, which Yelp months ago replaced with a notice that even the Attorney General admits is “accurate.” Yelp seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the further violation of its rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

As the complaint notes, Paxton himself has admitted that the label Yelp has put on CPC pages is “accurate” but that he still thinks the company should be punished. And, to be clear, even if the statements were not accurate, with certain limitations, Yelp still has a 1st Amendment right to post messages it wants on its platform without interference from government officials.

In February 2023, the Attorney General signed a letter demanding Yelp remove its original notice about crisis pregnancy centers, claiming the notice was misleading. Although the previous notice was truthful and not misleading, Yelp updated the notice to state that “Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers.” The Attorney General has publicly conceded that this statement is “accurate,” but still intends to punish Yelp using his authority to prosecute allegedly deceptive trade practices.

The First Amendment bars that action. The Attorney General may not punish Yelp for publishing truthful information, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 527-28 (2001), including truthful consumer information, Va. State Bd. of Pharm. v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 770-73 (1976). Such “[o]fficial reprisal for protected speech” is especially pernicious because it “threatens to inhibit the exercise” of free expression in the future. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006) (cleaned up).

Yelp requests an order declaring the Attorney General’s threatened prosecution unconstitutional; finding that Yelp’s publication of the original crisis pregnancy center notice did not violate the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 17.46); enjoining the Attorney General from prosecuting Yelp or taking any other action to in any way penalize Yelp for exercising its free speech rights; and awarding Yelp its attorneys’ fees for having to file this action to vindicate those rights.

The complaint details that Paxton had threatened to sue Yelp over these accurate labels:

The Attorney General mailed Yelp a letter dated September 22, 2023 providing “notice of intent to file suit against Yelp, Inc.” (cleaned up) having “concluded that Yelp . . . violated” the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by publishing the original (and since updated) Consumer Notice. See Ex. 1 at 1. The letter states that the Attorney General is authorized to file suit within “seven days.” Id. at 1; see also Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.47(a) (requiring sevendays’ notice before filing suit). The letter warns that the Attorney General is authorized to seek “civil penalties of up to $10,000.00 per violation” as well as “attorneys’ fees,” among other penalties. Id. at 1. Notably, the letter does not confine its threat to Yelp’s “violations” in Texas, but seeks to punish editorial choices—made by a California company—globally.

Again, this is all culture war censorial nonsense from the authoritarian-loving, indicted Ken Paxton, who just narrowly survived being removed from office after being impeached in the Texas legislature.

His threat is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment. Way more than any other I can think of in recent history, and very clearly and obviously significantly more so than anything the White House has done regarding social media these days.

So, again, I’d love for those defending Texas’ social media law or the recent rulings regarding White House jawboning to explain how they can possibly believe that Texas and Paxton are not doing significantly worse here. I mean, I’m sure you can come up with some nonsense, but just recognize there is no way it won’t make me laugh at how hypocritical you are.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: yelp

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Yelp Asks Court To Stop Texas AG Ken Paxton From Suing Them For Warning Users That Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Scams”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
51 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

What is the Hypocrisy?

The thing about this is that there is no contradiction between threatening Yelp with a lawsuit and stopping social media from banning accounts.

Republications want to promote and perpetuate reactionary worldviews, and its opposition is so focused on the hypocrisy rather then the intent.

Republicans are running based on values, and its important to focus on that rather then their hypocrisy.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Agreed. The GOP doesn’t care about hypocrisy being pointed out. The point is cruelty and inflicting harm on people that aren’t within the good graces of the GOP.

This is why I roll my eyes any time people say “But I thought that the GOP was the party of small government!” and other tropey gotchas, as if such commentary produces anything more than upvotes on Reddit from the choir being preached to.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

William Null says:

Re: Sorry, but you're mistaken

This is stupid. The government should NOT be able to tell websites not to host something. Anti-banning laws are not violating the 1A, as they do not block companies from hosting speech, this however is a clear 1A violation as Paxton is trying to force Yelp to not say what they want.

For someone who is a free speech absolutist of the highest caliber like me, this is disgusting. Companies should be hosting all the speech, not being censored (=forced to remove content) by anyone, with obvious exceptions of spam and illegal content such as CSAM and copyright infringement.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'You are free to say you agree with me'

Another example that when republicans talk about how vital ‘free speech’ is they only mean for speech they agree with, and when they talk about how the government has no business telling companies what to do it’s only when they aren’t the government at the time.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Tek'a says:

I haven’t dredged up links but recently I heard about a CPC here in Texas that took the fakery all the way to the point of getting an uncertain pregnant person in stirrups to check on their health, all the while skipping over the fact that they had no health care options to give. Amazingly any pregnant person would unerringly turn out to need a second visit to be scheduled because of nonspecific infection or other bs reason, getting strung along.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

I don’t get what Paxton is upset about with the new text.

Sincere answer to what I acknowledge is snark: The whole point of CPCs is to trick people into going there so they can be talked out of abortions. To that end, anything that warns people about the lack of reproductive healthcare (including abortion services) at CPCs is an existential threat to those facilities. Of course a Republican would hate that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If that is your stand on the situation, why shouldn’t those “working against the murder of defenseless babies” describe themselves as such, and why should you or Paxton be upset when someone else describes them as such?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 If the only way you can get people to listen is by lying to them...

Indeed, for people so sure in the righteousness of their cause you’d think they’d be thrilled to have people know ahead of time what services they do and do not offer.

To throw a fit over accurate labeling almost makes it seem like their bread and butter is deception, banking on people not knowing that they are not in the business of offering sound medical advice and services and instead drawing people in via dishonest presentation so they can trick them.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You are correct. And that besides, I support the right of any person of sound mind to have complete autonomy over their own body without infringement from any outside force. If someone wants to get a tattoo of a naked Peter Griffin in the Family Guy “knocked out” pose on their left asscheek, who am I to judge?

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 I will be happy to

If someone wants to get a tattoo of a naked Peter Griffin in the Family Guy “knocked out” pose on their left asscheek, who am I to judge?

Without even knowing who Peter Griffin or the Family Guy are, I can form a tentative opinion. Someone who gets a naked person tattooed on their butt is probably a person of poor judgment.

That said, it is not my place to prevent or interfere with such a thing being done. It does not harm or inconvenience me. Indeed, I probably will not even have to look at it. So, persons of poor judgment should be free to have such art applied.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ECA (profile) says:

apparently wholly unconstitutional to share information from the government with websites in any manner that might pressure them in how they moderate, yet at the same time, the government is absolutely free to compel companies to post messages that they want on websites.
..apparently, now to force companies NOT to post messages that they don’t want.

MAKE UP YOUR FRICKING MINDS, IF you have any.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Is it a crime to give medical advice when you are not a licensed medical doctor/nurse?

I suspect that it is, and therefore a CPC is on very thin ice when telling someone they have a viable pregnancy if they do not have a licensed medical doctor/nurse on site doing the exam.

Also .. does their medical staff need to have admission rights at the nearest hospital? You know .. like the planned parenthood people have been forced to do.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JustAGuy says:

Re:

It isn’t a crime to give medical advice. The same way it isn’t a crime to give financial advice or any kind of advice.

It can be illegal to present yourself as a qualified medical person when you aren’t, and CPCs skirt the line by various means.

Anonymous Coward says:

Turn the tables

What if we start setting up ‘Emergency Gun Distribution’ centers where the staff attempts to brainwash you to no longer wanting to own a gun?

Or ‘Border Protection Centers’ that try to convince the visitors into accepting immigrants and open borders?

Would the GOP want to block YELP (or any other service) for corectly stating what these centers do?

Nah, didn’t think so either…

dickeyrat says:

Much of the problem here stems from the arcane practice of applying standard, generally accepted guidelines of Constitutionally established expression, and objective evaluation, to anything and everything currently manhandled by the Texas Republican machine. That machine, bolstered by its three primary cogs (Gov.Greg Abbott, Lt.Gov.Dan Patrick and Ken Paxton), is nothing short of a burgeoning Fascist behemoth, an instrument of ideological enforcement of totalitarian goals and practices, designed to force the opinions of (in this case) well-heeled “political” financiers manifesting their dreams of megalomaniac manipulations of the masses, from the comfort of their fur-lined luxury palaces. Money is Power; Power is making-“you”-dance on the ends of our strings. Ha ha, look at ’em dancing! Remember that satisfying feeling of absolute power you’d get playing with your GI Joes and/or Barbie dolls at age 5? The Texas ruling oligarchy, and other similar right-wing Fascist universes of Authority are merely adult versions thereof. That couples with an overwhelming need for the Approval of Daddy (such as Trump), even as he drunkenly and stupidly stumbles around the room stepping on turds and land-mines. Perhaps I’m over-analyzing, but it’s a helluva way to run a state or a country. Which leads to a larger question: how and why do Amerikans keep electing these idiots?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Perhaps the real reason for this is that they don’t want citizens to know which centers do & don’t help so they can do what the lawmaker in Ohio tried to do funneling state money & giving a tax credit to anyone who donated to some crisis pregnancy centers… that she just happened to own.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...