Child Safety, Free Speech, and Privacy Experts Tell Supreme Court: Texas’s Unconstitutional Age Verification Law Must be Overturned
In Friend-of-the-Court Briefs, Orgs Explain that Age-gating the Internet Will Not Keep Kids or Adults Safe
WASHINGTON — Several leading advocacy organizations, including those dedicated to protecting children from exploitation, safeguarding free speech, and ending government abuse, along with prominent law professors, submitted friend-of-the-court briefs today in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a potentially precedent-setting case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, and Quinn Emanuel on behalf of the and others, challenges Texas’s H.B 1181, which requires any website that publishes content one third or more of which is “harmful to minors” — a broad category that includes virtually any explicit content — to force their visitors to provide digital IDs or other proof of age before they can access the published material. This law could apply to porn sites, as well as sexual health organizations, sites that host R-rated movies, and any website that contains nudity or descriptions of sexual organs or activities.
Though Texas claims the law is about protecting minors, the law does not merely restrict minors’ access. In requiring adults to to identify themselves online, the law burdens their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights to see sexual content or any other material on a regulated site. And, as today’s amicus briefs make clear, the law also fails to keep kids safe.
The organizations supporting the Free Speech Coalition via amicus briefs include the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children, the CATO Institute, the Institute for Justice, Media Coalition, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others. Each brief focuses on a different reason why the Supreme Court should strike down this anti-free speech age verification law, such as:
- The law’s ineffectiveness in protecting children and its potential for causing unintended harm to them;
- The risks the law poses for bookstores, libraries, and mainstream websites;
- The serious privacy and security threats the law imposes on people visiting websites required to collect IDs or other personal information;
- The significant differences between requiring in-person and online ID checks; and
- The broad harms posed to free speech if the Supreme Court upholds a Fifth Circuit ruling that strict scrutiny does not apply whenever the aim of a law is to protect children.
The following comments are from amici who submitted briefs:
Robert Cunningham, president and CEO, International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children:
“The Fifth Circuit’s ruling is troubling because, if left to stand, it would mean that laws like Texas H.B. 1181 will not be given the scrutiny needed to ensure that they do not cause more harm than good to the children they purport to protect.”
Lisa Femia, staff attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation:
“Texas’ age verification law robs internet users of anonymity, exposes them to privacy and security risks, and blocks some adults entirely from accessing sexual content that’s protected under the First Amendment. Applying longstanding Supreme Court precedents, other courts have consistently held that similar age verification laws are unconstitutional. To protect freedom of speech online, the Supreme Court should clearly reaffirm those correct decisions here.”
Thomas Berry, legal fellow and editor-in-chief of the , CATO Institute:
“While the protection of children is a goal everyone can agree on, courts must not tolerate state lawmakers’ Internet restrictions that infringe the First Amendment freedoms of adults.”
Paul Sherman, senior attorney, Institute for Justice:
“The Fifth Circuit made a classic error: It evaluated Texas’s law based on the legislature’s supposed motives for enacting it, rather than by examining who it regulates and what it does. But that is not how the First Amendment works. Texas regulates publishers of fully protected speech. Regardless of the government’s motives, those regulations are subject to the highest level of First Amendment scrutiny. The Fifth Circuit’s holding that they receive no First Amendment scrutiny at all is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent that threatens a wide array of non-offensive speech.”
Eric Goldman, associate dean for research and professor, Santa Clara University School of Law:
“The Fifth Circuit's opinion treated offline and online age authentication as the same, but this is a false equivalency. Compared to offline processes, online age authentication increases publishers' costs, prevents children and adults from accessing constitutionally protected content, and exposes all consumers to significant privacy and security risks. If the legislature truly cared about "protecting" children, making them more vulnerable to privacy and security risks is a policy fail.”
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is one of several cases in which the ACLU has urged courts to reject age verification schemes that would burden the free speech rights of internet users as part of the organization’s long tradition of defending online free expression.
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
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.