Judge blocks social media age-verification law in Arkansas
The law was stopped by U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the Western District of Arkansas.
In a Monday ruling, the judge said the law, known as Act 689, would violate the First Amendment rights of Arkansans because it is a 'content-based restriction' on speech rights and the restriction isn't narrowly tailored for a government interest.
The Arkansas law would require people under 18 to only access certain sites with parental permission. Companies would verify the ages of those in the state looking to make an account and ensure minors have parental permission.
NetChoice, the nonprofit for tech companies that brought the suit against the state, celebrated the judge's decision.
'The court confirms what we have been arguing from the start: laws restricting access to protected speech violate the First Amendment,' NetChoice Litigation Center director Chris Marchese said in a statement. '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.'
Marchese argued the judge's ruling protects Americans from handing over their IDs for 'biometric data' to access online content.
'It reaffirms that parents — not politicians or bureaucrats — should decide what's appropriate for their children,' he said.
NetChoice argued that the law was vague, since some apps likes Meta including Facebook and Instagram, along with TikTok and X, were included, but others like YouTube were not.
The 2023 law was a big push of Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R-Ark.) in her first year in office, The Arkansas Advocate reported. Several other states have sought to implement age-verification laws after Arkansas passed its own. While the act passed in 2023, it has not been implemented due to the ongoing court procedures.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) told the Advocate that he respects the judge's decision, and his office is evaluating its options.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Obamacare faces a subsidy cliff — don't bail it out without reform
The controversy over the 2010 Affordable Care Act dominated Barack Obama's presidency. The implementation of ObamaCare caused health insurance premiums to soar and nearly collapsed the market entirely. The Biden administration responded by flooding the system with expanded federal subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. To stop premiums for older workers with pre-existing conditions from suddenly leaping by $10,000, Republicans will need to extend part of this additional funding. But in return, they should insist on reforms to allow healthy Americans to purchase better value insurance with their own money. The Affordable Care Act required health insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions at the same price as enrollees who signed up before they got sick. As a result, premiums more than doubled, millions of healthy enrollees dropped coverage and many insurers abandoned the market. The Affordable Care Act kept the individual health insurance market from falling apart completely by providing subsidies to low-income enrollees. But individuals earning more than $62,600 in 2025 would have faced full premiums without any assistance. Those unsubsidized enrollees felt the full pain of the Affordable Care Act's premium hikes. The legislation allows insurers to charge older enrollees up to three times what they do the youngest, and so unsubsidized premiums for near-retirees can be huge. This year, the benchmark unsubsidized premium for a 61-year-old individual in Washington, D.C., is $15,402 per year. Rather than fix ObamaCare's structure, the newly-elected Democratic Congress in 2021 threw money at the problem with the American Rescue Plan Act. By expanding eligibility for subsidies to higher earners, the act reduced the cost of health insurance for a 61-year-old earning $70,000 from $15,402 to $5,950 — with federal taxpayers covering the difference. That legislation also expanded the generosity of subsidies for lower earners. Those earning $22,000, who would have contributed $756 to the cost of insurance under the original Affordable Care Act, would get it entirely paid for by the federal government. This approach has been hugely expensive. In May 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that subsidies for the Affordable Care Act would cost $67 billion in 2024. Last June, following a renewal of the American Rescue Plan Act's increased subsidies, the Congressional Budget Office's revised cost estimate for 2024 surged to $129 billion. A recent Paragon Institute report found that this leap in cost owed much to a surge in enrollment among those who received coverage free of charge. Paragon estimated that such enrollees accounted for nearly half of new enrollment, and that 5 million people may have misreported their income to claim free coverage, costing taxpayers an additional $20 billion. Insurers eagerly welcomed the influx of new healthy enrollees, who had not deemed it worth purchasing insurance from the individual market until the federal government paid the entire price. Such newcomers proved enormously lucrative, as they used less medical care than existing enrollees but generated the same revenue. Democrats, who received twice as much in campaign contributions as Republicans from Blue Cross Blue Shield in 2024, eagerly boasted about reducing the number of uninsured Americans, with little concern for the cost. The expiry of the American Rescue Plan Act subsidies is now looming again, set to expire at the end of 2025. It will be up to a Republican president and Republican-led Congress to find a way forward. Fiscal conservatives have little appetite to pay for renewing all the expanded ObamaCare subsidies. But nor will they feel comfortable letting the American Rescue Plan Act's enhanced subsidies expire entirely, as this would result in a $10,000-per-year premium hike on thousands of middle-income near-retirees. Congress should focus on targeted support by eliminating the cap on eligibility for the Affordable Care Act's original subsidies, which limit premiums at 9.5 percent of income, to avoid a sudden benefit cliff for those with incomes just above $62,600. But they should also let other expansions of subsidies expire. In return, Republicans should insist that Americans be allowed to obtain discounted premiums if they purchase insurance before they get sick. In 2017, President Trump allowed Americans to do this by purchasing short-term insurance. However, in 2024, the Biden administration limited the duration of these plans to four months. This came following pressure from big insurers, who claimed that allowing the expansion of such plans would prevent them from cross-subsidizing enrollees with pre-existing conditions by overcharging those who signed up while healthy. In reality, the restriction of these affordable plans has served mostly to inflate insurers' profits. Healthy enrollees remain able to purchase short-term plans afresh every few months; it is only those who subsequently become sick who are deprived of coverage. Regulatory protections for the long-term coverage of enrollees in non-ObamaCare plans should be strengthened; not weakened. Furthermore, with the extension of the American Rescue Plan Act's premium cap, federal subsidies taxpayers directly subsidize most enrollees. It is therefore unnecessary to also prohibit healthy enrollees from obtaining insurance plans which offer long-term coverage at good value for their money.
Buzz Feed
an hour ago
- Buzz Feed
MAGA Voter Lists 4 Things Trump Should Change
A Reddit post by a MAGA voter has recently gone viral for sharing a list of things Donald Trump needs to do better as President — but it's not exactly what you expect. At the start of the post, the MAGA voter explained why they voted for Trump in the first place, expressing their belief that a woman should not be president. "He was the best we had to choose from and I don't believe a woman should sit in that position." They then went on to list what needs to change in the Trump presidency. "Tired of hearing about Elon Musk and see some results." They wrote about Trump focusing on people other than the Biden family. "Move on from Joe Biden..." They emphasized Trump continuously bringing up past events. "Stop living in the forward." And advised Trump to stop the division, and "work for of America." Many people in the original poster's comments who also voted for Trump expressed support for the post: "We voted for Trump because there was not any other option. His big beautiful bill does zero for middle class Americans..." "I would love to see the Bidens prosecuted but it's time to move on and quit dwelling..." this user wrote. "I also do not believe a woman should hold that well said." Elsewhere, this person wrote, "It's really, really telling they'd rather have a felon than a woman running the country." "Lol most of these [people] don't realize they're spouting liberal talking points," another person wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Judge blocks Trump FTC's ‘retaliation' against liberal media watchdog
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's investigation of a liberal advocacy group known for its campaigns against Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and Elon Musk's X. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan cited evidence that the investigation, which was opened by the Federal Trade Commission last spring, was an act of retaliation against the advocacy group, Media Matters for America. The judge granted a preliminary injunction because, she wrote, 'Media Matters is likely to succeed in its First Amendment retaliation claim, which is all it needs at this stage.' Media Matters has been a thorn in the side of Musk and his X social network for years. The group has published numerous reports about the prevalence of violent and hateful posts on X, leading Musk to call them an 'evil propaganda machine' hellbent on harming his business by turning off advertisers. Musk sued Media Matters in response; the group has countersued, and some Republican elected officials have backed Musk. The overarching charge is that liberal activists have colluded with advertisers to hurt conservative platforms and chill speech. Some of the advertisers Musk has sued have fought back, arguing that he has resorted to legal and political maneuvers 'to win back the business X lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers.' With President Trump back in power, Musk and other Media Matters opponents have felt emboldened. Media Matters alleged 'retribution' when the FTC said it was probing possible collusion. Media Matters filed suit against the FTC seeking legal relief, which is what Sooknanan delivered on Friday, though the court battle is likely to continue. An FTC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the court order. Media Matters, which has been seriously hampered by Musk and company, said the injunction is a symbol of effective resistance to the Trump administration. 'The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration,' Media Matters president Angelo Carusone said in a statement. 'This case is not just about the campaign to punish and silence Media Matters, however,' he said. 'It is a critical test for whether the courts will allow any administration — from any political party — to bully media and non-profit organizations through illegal abuses of power.'
