Arkansas Social Media Age Verification Law Blocked By Federal Judge (engadget.com)
(Tuesday April 01, 2025 @05:30PM (BeauHD)
from the cease-and-desist dept.)
- Reference: 0176895971
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/04/01/2016219/arkansas-social-media-age-verification-law-blocked-by-federal-judge
- Source link: https://www.engadget.com/social-media/arkansas-social-media-age-verification-law-blocked-by-federal-judge-194614568.html?src=rss
A federal judge [1]struck down Arkansas' Social Media Safety Act , ruling it unconstitutional for broadly restricting both adult and minor speech and imposing vague requirements on platforms. Engadget reports:
> In [2]a ruling (PDF), Judge Timothy Brooks said that the law, known as [3]Act 689 (PDF), was overly broad. "Act 689 is a content-based restriction on speech, and it is not targeted to address the harms the State has identified," Brooks wrote in his decision. "Arkansas takes a hatchet to adults' and minors' protected speech alike though the Constitution demands it use a scalpel." Brooks also highlighted the "unconstitutionally vague" applicability of the law, which seemingly created obligations for some online services, but may have exempted services which had the "predominant or exclusive function [of]... direct messaging" like Snapchat.
>
> "The court confirms what we have been arguing from the start: laws restricting access to protected speech violate the First Amendment," NetChoice's Chris Marchese said in a statement. "This ruling protects Americans from having to hand over their IDs or biometric data just to access constitutionally protected speech online." It's not clear if state officials in Arkansas will appeal the ruling. "I respect the court's decision, and we are evaluating our options," Arkansas Attorney general Tim Griffin said in a statement.
[1] https://www.engadget.com/social-media/arkansas-social-media-age-verification-law-blocked-by-federal-judge-194614568.html?src=rss
[2] https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Court-Permanently-Halts-Arkansas-Age-Verification-Law_NetChoice-v-Griffin_Mar-31-2025.pdf
[3] https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2023R%2FPublic%2FACT689.pdf
> In [2]a ruling (PDF), Judge Timothy Brooks said that the law, known as [3]Act 689 (PDF), was overly broad. "Act 689 is a content-based restriction on speech, and it is not targeted to address the harms the State has identified," Brooks wrote in his decision. "Arkansas takes a hatchet to adults' and minors' protected speech alike though the Constitution demands it use a scalpel." Brooks also highlighted the "unconstitutionally vague" applicability of the law, which seemingly created obligations for some online services, but may have exempted services which had the "predominant or exclusive function [of]... direct messaging" like Snapchat.
>
> "The court confirms what we have been arguing from the start: laws restricting access to protected speech violate the First Amendment," NetChoice's Chris Marchese said in a statement. "This ruling protects Americans from having to hand over their IDs or biometric data just to access constitutionally protected speech online." It's not clear if state officials in Arkansas will appeal the ruling. "I respect the court's decision, and we are evaluating our options," Arkansas Attorney general Tim Griffin said in a statement.
[1] https://www.engadget.com/social-media/arkansas-social-media-age-verification-law-blocked-by-federal-judge-194614568.html?src=rss
[2] https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Court-Permanently-Halts-Arkansas-Age-Verification-Law_NetChoice-v-Griffin_Mar-31-2025.pdf
[3] https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2023R%2FPublic%2FACT689.pdf
"Constitutionally protected speech online?" (Score:2)
Is that actually a thing? I thought the argument was always that social media is owned by a company, and therefore is *NOT* actually constitutionally protected speech. Or did we cross some line at some point that I missed where the whole town square idea somehow actually stuck with the social media companies?
Do we actually exist? Is this all just a simulation? It doesn't feel like we're in reality anymore, so why not just wing it and go for it I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
The company that owns the platform can restrict your speech on their platform -just as you can restrict who talks about what in your home.
The government may not restrict what you discus in your home -or on a 3rd party platform.