ACLU, ACLU of Northern California Urge Court to Continue to Block Unconstitutional Restriction on Online Publication, Recognize Importance of Consumer Privacy Laws
The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act was framed as a law to protect children’s privacy online, but it is actually a content-based regulation of free speech.
SAN FRANCISCO — The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU Foundation of Northern California filed an today, urging the Ninth Circuit to continue to block the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA), a law that impermissibly and unconstitutionally places content-based restrictions on speech in the name of protecting privacy and children online.
The CAADCA violates the First Amendment by burdening online speech and restricting platforms’ editorial discretion. At the same time, it includes consumer privacy concepts that are important for legislatures to enact, and that could survive in another law. The ACLU urges the court to prohibit the enforcement of the CAADCA while leaving the door open to upholding other consumer privacy laws against future First Amendment challenges.
“Legislators around the country are understandably concerned with the privacy, wellbeing, and safety of children. But restricting and burdening speech, including speech that addresses difficult and critical concepts like parental abuse or depression, is not the right policy solution,” said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “The government cannot regulate speech solely to protect kids from ideas it thinks are unsuitable or harmful. Nor can it limit adults’ access to speech in the name of protecting children.”
The CAADCA expressly prohibits using a child’s personal information in a “materially detrimental” way, which could include criticizing a child for posting racist videos on social media or censoring articles written by school-shooting survivors recounting their experiences. It also requires websites to assess whether a new service or feature would expose users to “potentially harmful” content and develop a plan to eliminate that risk. This requirement could lead platforms to make their content moderation policies more speech restrictive or not publish certain content at all. In addition, the law also strongly incentivizes sites to engage in age-estimation methods that, ironically, increase consumer privacy and security concerns.
“Strong privacy laws are critical to protecting people of all ages from harm. California has long been on the forefront of crafting privacy laws that complement free speech protections and better protect people in this state and far beyond,” said Jake Snow, staff attorney with the Technology & Civil Liberties Program at the ACLU of Northern California. “The stakes are high to protect privacy and free speech in the digital age, and the court should recognize here that stronger privacy laws have a clear path to satisfy the First Amendment.”
As the ACLU explains in its brief, passing laws that offer stronger consumer privacy protections by default is a vitally important goal – and one that legislatures can accomplish without violating the First Amendment. For example, privacy laws that regulate how an entity that obtained information in exchange for provision of a good or service collects or uses that information do not incur the same First Amendment risks. This includes limits on the collection, use, and sharing of user information accumulated by social media platforms, such as data minimization and setting the highest privacy protections by default. A law can also require the disclosure of factual, noncontroversial information—such as the fact that a user’s geolocation is being monitored—so long as the requirement is reasonably related to preventing deception or otherwise enabling people to make informed consumer choices.
Legislatures have responded to many new mediums—from movies to video games to websites—with unduly burdensome restrictions on protected speech. The courts have consistently struck these efforts down, stating that, even where minors are concerned, the government cannot engage in content-based censorship to protect children. Nor can it limit adults’ access to speech by age-gating content. Today, the ACLU urges the court to continue to block the CAADCA while making clear that other consumer privacy laws are often constitutional.
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.