Arkansas Wants to Unconstitutionally “Card” People Before They Use Social Media
From banning books to restricting classroom discussions about race and gender, politicians across the country have been busy censoring speech in the name of “protecting the children.” Now they also have their eyes on limiting access to social media.
Arkansas recently passed the , which requires every person to verify their age before they can access existing social media accounts or create new ones. If a user cannot show they are at least 18 years old using a “commercially reasonable age verification method” — potentially including biometric screening or requiring government-issued ID — the law requires them to obtain parental consent to use social media. As the ACLU, the ACLU of Arkansas, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation explained in a friend-of-the court brief we recently filed in a challenge to the law, these requirements violate the First Amendment. They rob users of anonymity, pose privacy and security risks, and could be used to block some people from being able to use social media at all.
ACLU Supports Challenge to Arkansas Law that Places Unconstitutional Age-Verification and Parental Consent Requirements on Social Media Users
Arkansas’s “Social Media Safety Act” stifles freedom of expression.
Source: American Civil Liberties Union
A wealth of communication and expression takes place online. Children and adults use social media to share news, opinions, and ; participate in social ; interact with government ; explore their ; and express themselves .
While social media can create echo chambers, it can also expose people to ideas they wouldn’t otherwise encounter. Roughly 23 percent of adult social media users told researchers that they “have changed their views about a political or social issue because of something they saw on social media in the last year.” Some social media use might harm a user’s body image, but it also allows people who don’t see their body types represented in mainstream media to their talents and lived experiences with the world.
While social media can have negative consequences for some teens’ mental health, for others, it can be a lifeline. Paula Sojo’s TikTok , for example, has become a community for people with chronic illnesses who might otherwise feel isolated and alone. And many young LGBTQ+ people who face discrimination and judgement offline turn to social media for community, exploration, and support. The First Amendment protects the right to engage in all of this speech.
If allowed to go into effect, the Arkansas law would prohibit users from accessing social media anonymously or under a pen name. Age verification requirements can deter even adults from engaging on social media because they worry about sharing additional personal data with social media companies, which could misuse the information or get hacked. And those who don’t have government-issued identification — undocumented immigrants, for example — might be unable to access social media at all. Additionally, the parental consent requirement violates kids’ rights to speak and receive information as well as adults’ right to hear what they have to say. Courts have struck down past government attempts to “protect the children” from all kinds of “dangerous” new communication technologies, from to , for these reasons.
NetChoice v. Griffin
Arkansas’s so-called “Social Media Safety Act” requires users to verify their ages before using social media.
Source: American Civil Liberties Union
The ACLU consistently fights against laws that purport to protect kids, but ultimately censor and chill speech. After the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) made it a crime to engage in “indecent” or “patently offensive” speech online if the speech could be viewed by a minor, we filed what would become a seminal case on First Amendment rights in the digital age: Reno v. ACLU. We argued, and the Supreme Court ultimately held, that the First Amendment applies with full force online, and the risk that minors will see indecent communications doesn’t justify censoring the internet when alternatives that restrict less speech are available.
The same is true for parental consent requirements. In 2011, the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the sale or rental of violent video games to minors — but allowed adults to purchase games for minors — on First Amendment grounds. The court that the law was not simply enforcing parental authority over what their kids could access; it was imposing what the government thought parents ought to want their kids to see.
Of course, some parents (and some minors) might decide that the negative consequences of social media use outweigh the benefits. They might choose to impose limitations on their children’s — and their own — social media use. For example, they might forbid their children from using social media until they reach a certain age or level of digital , impose time limits, or leave all devices in a separate room before bed. But those decisions are not for the government to make.
We urge the Western District of Arkansas to protect adults’ and kids’ right to access social media. We all have the right to speak and read about everything from protests to tips to challenging Arkansas’ law.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.