Needs to be challenged in court. Someday, soon, that remedy won’t work anymore.
This is not a freedom of speech issue; hardly any major case is. It is always a freedom of the press issue - and such issues are not infrequently wrongly decided. For example, McCain-Feingold was wrongly upheld in the infamous McConnell v. FEC ruling by SCOTUS.Why emphasize freedom of the press over freedom of speech? Both are crucial, but the signal difference between the two is that "the press" is a technology, and "the press" costs money - at a minimum, ink and paper money, in reality the cost of the press itself, and pay for the operators of the press. So freedom of the press ineluctably entails unregulated freedom to spend money to promote ideas - political, religious, or other.
As to the "technology" aspect:
- The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . . - Article 1 Section 8.
This implies that although the framers and ratifies of the Constitution could not specifically anticipate the Internet, the TV, the radio - or even the telegraph - they peremptorily approved of all of them, with the caveat that
- Article. V. provides for modification to the Constitution if a technology should become destructive.
The government - of Texas or of the United States - cannot regulate the press, including the internet, without establishing an illegitimate "title of nobility" or established priesthood of people who are allowed to publish on the internet.