ACLU Supports Challenge to Arkansas Law that Places Unconstitutional Age-Verification and Parental Consent Requirements on Social Media Users
Arkansas’s so-called “Social Media Safety Act” stifles freedom of expression online by requiring users to verify their ages and, if under 18, obtaining explicit parental consent before using social media.
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arkansas, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation today filed a proposed amicus brief in support of a challenge to Arkansas’ Act 689, also known as the . The law, which is set to go into effect in September, stifles freedom of expression online by requiring all users, including adults, to verify their ages before using existing social media accounts or opening new ones. It also requires any users who are minors to obtain explicit parental consent for social media usage.
Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed the Social Media Safety Act into law in April 2023. If allowed to go into effect, the law will require the users to provide personal information, such as a driver’s license or photo ID, to companies or applications that purport to be able to verify their ages.
This legislation threatens the free speech rights of all Arkansans, forcing us to hand over our private data or lose the ability to participate in robust online conversation. Individuals of all ages rely on social media for political speech, artistic expression, advocacy, access to the news, and more. Imposing unconstitutional age-verification requirements burdens users who may want to engage in anonymous speech, who do not have government ID, and who are otherwise concerned about their privacy and security. The law’s parental consent requirement would also impermissibly burden the First Amendment rights of young people, who are often at the forefront of movements, trends, and technologies.
“Arkansas is essentially trying to card people before they can use the internet. Even where protection of children is the aim, the government can’t use such wide-ranging means,” said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “This isn’t the first time that concerns about new media have led legislators to pass unconstitutional laws. We’ve gone through this time and again, with everything from books to music to video games to websites, and courts have repeatedly struck down laws imposing age verification and parental consent requirements.”
Lawmakers claim this legislation is aimed at giving parents more control over their kids’ social media usage and protecting teens from the harm social media may impose on young adults’ mental health. However, as written, this law not only fails to protect children, it also unfairly burdens users who care about anonymity, privacy, and security online, and may put users’ personal data at risk.
“This misguided attempt to ‘protect’ Arkansans ironically threatens to strip away our civil rights,” said Holly Dickson, executive director of ACLU of Arkansas. “This law is an affront to our freedom of expression and right to privacy, and a stark reflection of an alarming trend where our fundamental rights as Arkansans are being eroded under the guise of security. Arkansans deserve better than legislation that prioritizes control and surveillance over constitutionally guaranteed liberties.”
For decades the courts have struck down similar laws and attempts at age verification passed in the name of protecting kids online. Where less restrictive alternatives exist, the government cannot impose age verification on adults in the name of protecting kids. The same is true of requiring parental consent for kids’ social media use, since parents may have authority over their own kids, but the government cannot impose its view of what parents ought to want on all families. The ACLU is actively fighting similar attempts to burden free speech and free expression online at both the state and federal levels.
A copy of the proposed amicus brief can be found here.
Free Speech
NetChoice v. Griffin
Free Speech
NetChoice v. Griffin
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.