logo
US Supreme Court declines for now to block Mississippi social media age-check law

US Supreme Court declines for now to block Mississippi social media age-check law

The Star4 hours ago
FILE PHOTO: A view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S., June 17, 2024. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Thursday to put on hold a Mississippi law requiring that users of social media platforms verify their age and that minors have parental consent in a challenge by a trade group whose members include Meta's Facebook, Alphabet's YouTube and Snapchat.
The justices denied a request by NetChoice to block the law while the Washington-based tech industry trade association's legal challenge to the law, which it argues violates the U.S. Constitution's protections against government abridgement of free speech, plays out in lower courts.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a statement about the court's order said the Mississippi law was likely unconstitutional, but that NetChoice had not met the high bar to block the measure at this early stage of the case.
In a statement, Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said Kavanaugh's view "makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed" in its challenge. Taske called the Supreme Court's order "an unfortunate procedural delay."
The Mississippi attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
NetChoice turned to the Supreme Court after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals let the law take effect even though a judge found it likely runs afoul of the First Amendment.
NetChoice sued in federal court in 2024 in a bid to invalidate the law, which was passed unanimously in the state legislature amid concern by lawmakers about the potential negative effects of social media use on the mental health of children. Its emergency request to the justices marked the first time the Supreme Court was asked to consider a social media age-verification law.
The state law requires that a social media platform obtain "express consent" from a parent or guardian of a minor before a child can open an account. It also states that regulated social media platforms must make "commercially reasonable" efforts to verify the age of users.
Under the law, the state can pursue civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation as well as criminal penalties under Mississippi's deceptive trade practices law.
U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden in Gulfport, Mississippi, last year blocked Mississippi from enforcing the restrictions on some NetChoice members. Ozerden issued a second order in June pausing the rules against those members, including Meta and its Instagram and Facebook platforms, Snapchat and YouTube.
The 5th Circuit on July 17 issued a one-sentence ruling that paused the judge's order, without explaining its reasoning.
Courts in seven states have preliminarily or permanently blocked similar measures, according to NetChoice.
Some technology companies are separately battling lawsuits brought by U.S. states, school districts and individual users alleging that social platforms have fueled mental health problems. The companies have denied wrongdoing.
NetChoice said the social media platforms of its members already have adopted extensive policies to moderate content for minors and provide parental controls.
In its request to the Supreme Court, the state told the justices that age-verification and parental consent requirements "are common ways for states to protect minors."
(Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by Will Dunham)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US Supreme Court declines to block Mississippi social media age-check law
US Supreme Court declines to block Mississippi social media age-check law

The Sun

time2 hours ago

  • The Sun

US Supreme Court declines to block Mississippi social media age-check law

WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Thursday to put on hold a Mississippi law requiring that users of social media platforms verify their age and that minors have parental consent in a challenge by a trade group whose members include Meta's Facebook, Alphabet's YouTube and Snapchat. The justices denied a request by NetChoice to block the law while the Washington-based tech industry trade association's legal challenge to the law, which it argues violates the U.S. Constitution's protections against government abridgement of free speech, plays out in lower courts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a statement about the court's order said the Mississippi law was likely unconstitutional, but that NetChoice had not met the high bar to block the measure at this early stage of the case. In a statement, Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said Kavanaugh's view 'makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed' in its challenge. Taske called the Supreme Court's order 'an unfortunate procedural delay.' The Mississippi attorney general's office in a statement welcomed the Supreme Court's order to leave the state law in place 'while the case proceeds in a way that permits thoughtful consideration of these important issues.' NetChoice turned to the Supreme Court after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals let the law take effect even though a judge found it likely runs afoul of the First Amendment. NetChoice sued in federal court in 2024 in a bid to invalidate the law, which was passed unanimously in the state legislature amid concern by lawmakers about the potential negative effects of social media use on the mental health of children. Its emergency request to the justices marked the first time the Supreme Court was asked to consider a social media age-verification law. The state law requires that a social media platform obtain 'express consent' from a parent or guardian of a minor before a child can open an account. It also states that regulated social media platforms must make 'commercially reasonable' efforts to verify the age of users. Under the law, the state can pursue civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation as well as criminal penalties under Mississippi's deceptive trade practices law. U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden in Gulfport, Mississippi, last year blocked Mississippi from enforcing the restrictions on some NetChoice members. Ozerden issued a second order in June pausing the rules against those members, including Meta and its Instagram and Facebook platforms, Snapchat and YouTube. The 5th Circuit on July 17 issued a one-sentence ruling that paused the judge's order, without explaining its reasoning. Courts in seven states have preliminarily or permanently blocked similar measures, according to NetChoice. Some technology companies are separately battling lawsuits brought by U.S. states, school districts and individual users alleging that social platforms have fueled mental health problems. The companies have denied wrongdoing. NetChoice said the social media platforms of its members already have adopted extensive policies to moderate content for minors and provide parental controls. In its request to the Supreme Court, the state told the justices that age-verification and parental consent requirements 'are common ways for states to protect minors.' - Reuters

Eduardo Bolsonaro warns of more US sanctions, tariffs on Brazil
Eduardo Bolsonaro warns of more US sanctions, tariffs on Brazil

The Sun

time2 hours ago

  • The Sun

Eduardo Bolsonaro warns of more US sanctions, tariffs on Brazil

WASHINGTON: Brazilian Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, told Reuters on Thursday that he expects additional U.S. sanctions against Brazilian officials and possibly more tariffs due to a legal crackdown on his father. In an interview at the Reuters bureau in Washington after meetings with senior U.S. officials, the lawmaker said he saw no way for Brazil to negotiate a lower U.S. tariff on its exports without concessions from the Brazilian Supreme Court. 'The Supreme Court justices have to understand they've lost power,' he said. 'There is no scenario where the Supreme Court emerges victorious from this whole imbroglio. They're in conflict with the greatest economic power in the world.' The younger Bolsonaro's advocacy in Washington has put him at the center of bilateral tensions after U.S. President Donald Trump slapped a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods and financial sanctions on the Brazilian judge overseeing prosecution of the elder Bolsonaro, demanding an end to a 'witch hunt' against the former president. 'I think he's an honest man... This is really a political execution that they're trying to do with Bolsonaro,' Trump told reporters on Thursday. Jair Bolsonaro is currently on trial before Brazil's top court over an alleged plot to overturn the 2022 election that he lost. He denies any wrongdoing. Eduardo Bolsonaro described the U.S. tariffs on Brazilian beef, coffee, fish, footwear and other goods as 'bitter medicine' aimed at curbing what he called an out-of-check legal offensive against his father. 'I've told everyone trying to approach this only through the lens of trade: it won't work. There needs to be a signal first to the U.S. that we're resolving our institutional crisis,' he said. The U.S. State Department ratcheted up pressure on Wednesday, moving to revoke and restrict visas on government officials and their family members from countries including Brazil due to their ties with an exchange program involving Cuban doctors. Eduardo Bolsonaro said he expects those restrictions will soon hit Health Minister Alexandre Padilha and probably leftist ex-President Dilma Rousseff for their roles in the program. Rousseff was the chief of staff and successor to current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva when his second term ended in 2010. Representatives for Padilha and Rousseff did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Lula has dismissed Trump's demands as an affront to national sovereignty and said he has refused to 'humiliate' himself with a call to the White House. In a Reuters interview last week, he called Eduardo Bolsonaro and his father 'traitors' for courting Trump's intervention. Brazil's top court is investigating both Bolsonaros over their appeals to Trump. Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has increased pressure on the former president, putting him under house arrest and forbidding contact with his son in the U.S. or foreign officials. In Thursday's interview in Washington, Eduardo Bolsonaro said he expected a U.S. response to that crackdown, including sanctions against Viviane Barci de Moraes, a high-powered Brazilian attorney married to Justice Moraes. Bolsonaro also said he could see more tariffs on Brazilian goods on the way. 'I could expect more tariffs, because Brazilian authorities have not changed their behaviors,' he said. The Brazilian lawmaker, who moved in March to the United States in an effort to garner Trump's support for his father, said he had been advocating for sanctions targeting Moraes and his family, with tariffs as a 'last resort.' He said immediate U.S. sanctions against other Supreme Court justices seemed unlikely, given the focus on isolating Moraes, whom he called a 'gangster,' a 'psychopath' and a 'mafioso.' The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Moraes has described his rulings, which have been upheld by the wider court, as a defense of Brazilian democracy under constitutional law. In an interview with Reuters last month, Jair Bolsonaro said he expected his son to seek U.S. citizenship to avoid returning to Brazil. The younger Bolsonaro declined to comment on the details of his immigration status, but said he and his family had permission to stay in the United States 'for a good while,' and left the door open to seeking asylum and eventually citizenship. - Reuters

National Guard troops fully deployed in Washington for Trump-ordered security mission, says Pentagon
National Guard troops fully deployed in Washington for Trump-ordered security mission, says Pentagon

Malay Mail

time2 hours ago

  • Malay Mail

National Guard troops fully deployed in Washington for Trump-ordered security mission, says Pentagon

WASHINGTON, Aug 15 — All 800 National Guard troops who were ordered to the US capital Washington to aid law enforcement personnel by President Donald Trump have now been mobilised, the Pentagon said Thursday. Trump ordered the deployment — which follows a similar move during protests in Los Angeles in June — as part of what he billed as a crackdown on crime in Washington, where violent offences are in fact down. 'As of today, all 800 Army and Air National Guardsmen are mobilised... as part of Joint Task Force DC, and they are now here in our capital,' Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson told journalists. They 'will assist the DC Metropolitan Police Department and federal law enforcement partners with monument security, community safety patrols, protecting federal facilities and officers' and traffic control posts, Wilson said. The troops 'will remain until law and order has been restored in the District, as determined by the president,' she added. The US Army later said the National Guard's initial mission 'is to provide a visible presence in key public areas, serving as a visible crime deterrent.' 'They will not arrest, search, or direct law enforcement,' but they 'have the authority to temporarily detain individuals to prevent imminent harm,' the Army said in a statement. The troops will be equipped with protective gear, it added, saying that weapons would be available if needed but would remain in the armory. Trump announced the National Guard deployment — along with a federal takeover of the city's police department — on Monday, vowing 'to take our capital back.' The overwhelmingly Democratic US capital faces allegations from Republican politicians that it is overrun by crime, plagued by homelessness and financially mismanaged. However, data from Washington police shows significant drops in violent crime between 2023 and 2024, although that was coming off the back of a post-pandemic surge. The deployment of troops in Washington comes after Trump dispatched the National Guard and Marines to quell unrest in Los Angeles, California, that was spurred by immigration enforcement raids. It was the first time since 1965 that a US president deployed the National Guard against the wishes of a state governor. Most National Guard forces answer to state governors and have to be 'federalized' to be brought under presidential control, but in Washington these troops already report only to the US president. — AFP

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store