Age verification laws passed by US states continue to face legal challenges on First Amendment grounds, with a federal judge last week striking down the one passed in Ohio.
District Court Judge Algenon Marbley ruled to issue a permanent injunction in the NetChoice v. Yost case, thus making null and void the Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, passed in mid-2023. The law required parental consent for users under 16 to access social media.
We obtained a copy of the injunction for you here.
The judge defined the case as “(Residing) at the intersection of two unquestionable rights: the rights of children to ‘a significant measure of’ freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment, and the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children free from unnecessary governmental intrusion.”
NetChoice – a group that gathers the tech’s biggest corporations, including Google, Meta, and Amazon – announced victory in a press release heavily emphasizing issues like privacy, security, and constitutionality as the reasons for prevailing in this case, after achieving the same result in fighting against a similar law in Arkansas.
More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda
And while coming from the mouth(piece) of Big Tech, these arguments might sound hypocritical – two things get to be true at the same time.
Big Tech’s concern about this “genre” of laws may plausibly be solely about the fear of losing users and masking that with privacy and First Amendment grandstanding – equally, these sometimes seemingly hastily and poorly put together pieces of legislation may, in fact, fail to properly address the paramount issue of constitutionality.
And that is something NetChoice and those it represents will continue to exploit as long as legislators fail to strike a proper balance between free speech and what these laws are supposed to be doing – shielding minors from harmful content.
To make matters more complicated, according to Judge Marbley, that balance may or may not currently exist in the US legal system.
“Protecting children’s well-being is a laudable, perhaps even achievable, goal. But Ohio’s imperative is to achieve this goal through legislation that is constitutional,” the ruling reads.
More: How the “think of the children”; narrative is being used to crush online free speech and privacy
NetChoice (and Google, Meta, etc., lurking behind it) – evoking concepts like the US Constitution guaranteeing “rights that the government may not violate” – ring particularly hollow given the many years these giants have been enforcing censorship, including in collusion with the government.
But given that the judge in the case did not seem entirely sure the current legal system is equipped to both protect speech, and minors online (by stating this was “perhaps even achievable”) – those truly dedicated to the cause of protecting children and not scoring easy political points, should work harder while drafting and wording their legislation.
