A federal judge blocked enforcement of New York's law that aims to prevent hate speech on social media, holding that the law violated the Constitution's free speech protections.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter Jr. sided with a legal blog, the Volokh Conspiracy, and video site Rumble, a Peter Thiel-backed online platform known for championing anti-censorship policies and free speech. The plaintiffs claimed in a lawsuit that the law, which would make "hateful conduct prohibited" on social media, would hurt their online services and silence disfavored viewpoints.

Known as the Hateful Conduct Law, the measure sought to define such conduct as using a social media network to "vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression."

GERMANY RAIDS HOMES OVER 'HATE SPEECH' AND INSULTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA

But Carter's preliminary injunction Tuesday means that New York cannot legally force blogs or other online internet platforms to adopt its definition of hate speech.

Carter wrote that the language of the law “strongly suggests that the law is really aimed at reducing, or perhaps even penalizing people who engage in, hate speech online,” which amounts to a content-based restriction on speech that would be in violation of the First Amendment.

Although the plaintiffs succeeded in blocking the law from taking effect, the judge did disagree with an argument that the state law violated Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Carter said the plaintiffs failed to prove the law violates Section 230 because the law "does not impose liability on social media networks for failing to respond to an incident of 'hateful conduct.''

The court ultimately found the online conduct law was facially overbroad and lacked constitutional muster.