Judge Blocks Arkansas Law that Would Have Placed Unconstitutional Age-Verification and Parental Consent Requirements on Social Media Users
The victory supports challenges to laws that stifle the free speech rights of minors and adults.
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — In a win for free speech rights online, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas-Fayetteville Division blocked Arkansas’ unconstitutional Social Media Safety Act from going into effect today. The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arkansas, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the law, also known as Arkansas’ Act 689. The law will remain blocked while the case, NetChoice v. Griffin, moves forward.
Previously, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed the Social Media Safety Act into law in April 2023. The law would have required 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. As written, the law would have stifled 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 would have required any users who are minors to obtain explicit parental consent for social media usage.
“The law was blocked by the court based on rights violations raised to the legislature before the bill was passed,” said Holly Dickson, executive director of ACLU of Arkansas. “It would have created a false sense of security around protecting children. The decision is welcome protection for Arkansans’ free speech, privacy, liberty, and security.”
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.
“The court rightly recognized that this law — which treated the entirety of social media like a bar or casino — unconstitutionally burdened the free speech rights of young people and adults alike. Like too many bills around the country, it was a scattershot attempt to ‘protect the children’ without a clear connection to actually achieving that goal,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, & Technology Project. “We hope this decision will be a lesson for legislators around the country considering similar bills.”
Lawmakers claimed this legislation was 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.
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.
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.