Federal judge strikes down Arkansas social media age verification law
NetChoice, a tech trade association based in Washington, D.C. with notable members such as Meta and X, sued the state of Arkansas over Act 689 in June 2023, claiming that it violated the First Amendment.
Act 689, also known as the Social Media Safety Act, required certain social media companies to verify the ages of those in the state seeking to create an account and check to ensure that minors have parental permission.
However, Western District of Arkansas judge Timothy Brooks said the law isn't narrowly tailored to address the state's interests in protecting minors from objectionable content.
Study: Arkansas homebuyers need this much income to afford a 'typical' home
On Monday, the lawsuit came to a close after the judge struck down the law, claiming that the law infringed on the First Amendment rights of internet users and was unconstitutionally vague, violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
'Rather than targeting content that is harmful to minors, Act 689 simply impedes access to content writ large,' Brooks said.
Brooks wrote that since the law drew content-based and speaker-based distinctions to determine which companies had to follow the law, it was deemed unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
'Arkansas takes a hatchet to adults' and minors' protected speech alike, though the Constitution demands it use a scalpel,' Brooks wrote in a 41-page order on Monday.
Brooks also said the law is too vague in defining what online services are covered by the age verification requirements.
The law was set to go into effect on Sept. 1, 2023, but on August 31, 2023, Brooks filed a preliminary injunction, preventing the law from taking effect.
Arkansas man arrested, facing 461 counts of child pornography charges
After months of motions to extend and motions for summary judgment, Brooks granted Netchoice's motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoined the law on Monday, ending the lawsuit.
Chris Marchese, the director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, released the following statement on Tuesday morning:
'The court confirms what we have been arguing from the start: laws restricting access to protected speech violate the First Amendment. And while we are grateful that this law has been permanently struck down and free speech online preserved, we remain open to working with Arkansas policymakers to advance legislation that protects minors without violating the Constitution.' 'This ruling protects Americans from having to hand over their IDs or biometric data just to access constitutionally protected speech online,' Marchese noted. 'It reaffirms that parents—not politicians or bureaucrats—should decide what's appropriate for their children.'
'I respect the court's decision, and we are evaluating our options,' Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a statement to KNWA/FOX24 on Tuesday.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
2 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Why 17-year-olds are exempt from new Indy youth curfew passed after mass shooting
Indianapolis officials have made the youth curfew two hours earlier for all children younger than 17 for at least the rest of this year. About a month after a July 5 mass shooting left two teenagers dead, the Indianapolis City-County Council voted Aug. 11 to make the youth curfew stricter effective immediately. An initial proposal that included 17-year-olds was amended at the last minute by Democratic councilors who felt that older teens should be granted more independence. The new rules mean that children ages 15 and 16 won't be allowed in public unsupervised past 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and past 9 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays. Children under 15 will face a 9 p.m. curfew every day. The city's emergency curfew will remain in place for 120 days, which means the council must decide in early December whether to extend or relax the policy. Teens who are 17 will still be subject to the state curfew of 1 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 11 p.m. on Sundays through Thursdays. The 25-person council's Democratic majority passed the amendment that excluded 17-year-olds from the new curfew despite the opposition of all six Republican councilors. "The sun doesn't even go down in the summer until near 10 p.m., and I don't think we're putting ourselves in a good position pushing 17-year-olds to break curfew at 10-10:30 p.m.," said Councilor Jared Evans, who introduced the amendment at Monday's council meeting. Republicans like Councilor Joshua Bain said that excluding 17-year-olds from the new policy weakens the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's efforts to keep people safe. "It is not the goal of IMPD to go around arresting every 17-year-old that's out at night," Bain said. "This is a targeted way for them to get in between a 17-year-old that's about to make a really bad decision and possibly ruin the rest of their life." The ordinance doesn't create a criminal offense for children who break curfew, but it does grant police the authority to detain them. The policy carves out several exceptions for kids who are returning home from work, a school activity, a religious event or activities protected by the First Amendment such as political protests, among others. IMPD Chief Christopher Bailey said he was unbothered by the change exempting 17-year-olds from a stricter curfew. (He mentioned in jest that his daughter, who is nearly 17 and has been criticizing her father at home over the new curfew, would be "very pleased.") "My direction to the officers is not some sweep of everyone that's out," Bailey said. "It's really behavioral-based." Democratic Councilor Dan Boots spoke bluntly in support of more leniency for 17-year-olds. "Seventeen-year-olds are rising seniors in high school, a step away from being able to vote and be drafted and killed for our country," Boots said. "I think they have a right to stay out past 9 to go to a movie and come back." Republican Councilor Michael-Paul Hart, who also voted against the last-minute change, introduced a new proposal Monday night that would fine parents whose children violate curfew. State law allows the city to impose thousands of dollars in fines, according to city attorney Brandon Beeler, but it's unclear how harshly violators would be prosecuted. Hart's proposal would give parents one written warning for a first violation, followed by a $500 fine for a second time and a $1,500 fine for each subsequent occurrence. Councilors will consider the proposal in committee later this month before a likely vote in September. The harsher curfew change comes after hundreds of unsupervised teens lingered downtown in the hours following the Fourth of July fireworks show, culminating in a mass shooting after midnight that killed Xavion Jackson, 16, and Azareaon S. Cole, 15. Two other teens and three adults were also injured. Four teenagers ranging from 13 to 17 years old have been charged in connection with the shooting for illegally carrying guns.
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trial starts over Trump administration's deployment of National Guard to Los Angeles
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up On Monday, Trump said he was Advertisement The trial in San Francisco could set a precedent for how Trump can deploy the guard in the future in California or other states. The Trump administration federalized California National Guard members and sent them to the second-largest US city over the objections of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and city leaders after Advertisement The Department of Defense ordered the deployment of roughly 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Most of the troops have since left, but California is asking Judge Charles Breyer to order the Trump administration to return control of the remaining troops to the state and to stop the federal government from using military troops in California 'to execute or assist in the execution of federal law or any civilian law enforcement functions by any federal agent or officer.' Newsom won an early victory from Breyer, who found the Trump administration violated the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which defines power between federal and state governments, and exceeded its authority. The Trump administration immediately appealed, arguing that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. It After their deployment, the guard members accompanied federal immigration officers on raids in Los Angeles and at two marijuana farm sites in Ventura County while Since June, federal agents have rounded up Trump federalized members of the California National Guard under a law that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Advertisement Breyer found the protests in Los Angeles 'fall far short of 'rebellion.'' Ernesto Santacruz Jr., the field office director for the Department of Homeland Security in Los Angeles, said in court documents that the troops were needed because local law enforcement was slow to respond when a crowd gathered outside the federal building to protest the June 7 immigration arrests. 'The presence of the National Guard and Marines has played an essential role in protecting federal property and personnel from the violent mobs,' Santacruz said.
Time Magazine
5 hours ago
- Time Magazine
What Is the Home Rule Act? The Law Trump Invoked in D.C. Takeover
To take control of the police force of Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump on Monday invoked part of the law that has given the nation's capital a greater degree of self-governance over the past five decades. Citing 'violent crime,' Trump declared a public safety emergency in D.C. and invoked section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973. The law 'is the result of the ongoing push by District residents for control of their own local affairs,' according to the Council of the District of Columbia. D.C. was previously directly governed by Congress—which the Constitution grants authority to 'exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever' over the district—and federal appointees. The Home Rule Act allowed city residents to elect a mayor and council starting in the fall of 1974, though it maintained a congressional oversight over D.C. Congress reviews all legislation that the Council passes before it can be enacted into law, and maintains authority over the city's budget. D.C. still doesn't have a voting member of Congress. Section 740 of the law allows the President to take control of D.C.'s police force in 'conditions of an emergency nature'—with certain limitations. The President can federalize the city's law enforcement agency for a period of up to 30 days under the Act, after which point both chambers of Congress must enact into law a joint resolution to extend the emergency control. The Executive Order that Trump signed on Monday says that the federal government shall maintain control of the city's police force 'for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.' Read More: Trump Threatens to Federalize D.C. After Beating of 'Big Balls' Trump threatened to federalize D.C., decrying crime in the city, after the reported assault of a Trump Administration staffer—though data show that violent crime in the city is down significantly. For the federal government to fully take control of the city's governance, the Home Rule Act would have to be suspended or repealed. Some GOP politicians have expressed support for federalizing D.C., a heavily Democratic city, and pushed to repeal the law. Democrats, meanwhile, slammed Trump's move on Monday. D.C.'s Democratic non-voting representative in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, called it 'an historic assault on D.C. home rule' and 'a counterproductive, escalatory seizure of D.C.'s resources to use for purposes not supported by D.C. residents.' Norton and Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland announced the same day that they plan to reintroduce legislation that would give the district full control over the D.C. National Guard and the city's police department when Congress convenes next month, saying those actions 'are needed more urgently than ever.' The bills, the lawmakers said, would repeal the section in the Home Rule Act that allows the President to federalize the city's police force. Norton and other Democratic lawmakers previously introduced similar legislation in 2021, soon after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In announcing her intention to introduce the legislation at the time, Norton said that the attack on the Capitol 'highlighted more starkly than ever the risk to local D.C. public safety from the president's control over the D.C. National Guard and ultimate authority over the D.C. police department,' adding that 'the mayor should not be reliant on the president to deploy the National Guard to protect public safety in D.C., and D.C. should never have to worry that a president will take over its police force and use it how he or she sees fit.'
