Arkansas social media age law struck down, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders seeks amended version
A federal judge this week found that an Arkansas law requiring age verification for social media users is unconstitutional and permanently blocked the law, according to a ruling posted by the trade association that opposed it.
Why it matters: The law, known as Act 689 of 2023, had the potential to set a precedent for minors' First Amendment rights and was the first of its kind in the nation.
Opponents of Act 689 argued that it raised privacy, free speech and enforceability concerns, while supporters said it could help protect children from harmful effects of social media.
The latest: Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced late Wednesday afternoon a proposed bill that would amend the law in hopes that it will be allowed go into effect.
Some changes include clarifying the definition of "social media" and prohibiting social media algorithms from targeting minors, according to a news release from her office.
SB611 was filed with state Sen. Tyler Dees (R-Siloam Springs) as the lead sponsor.
What they're saying: U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the Western District of Arkansas said in Monday's ruling that Act 689 would "violate the First Amendment rights of Arkansans because it is a facially content-based restriction on speech that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest."
The ruling also states it would also violate plaintiffs' rights to due process because it is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office is evaluating next steps, but that he respects the ruling, the Arkansas Advocate reported.
Flashback: Brooks temporarily blocked the law just before it was set to take effect last fall.
How it works: The law required social media platforms like Facebook or Instagram to verify new users' ages and obtain parental consent for users under 18 before opening an account.
Brooks argued that while unfettered social media access can be harmful to kids, there's no evidence the law would achieve the state's goal of protecting minors.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sharing an elected Louisiana leader's personal info could soon result in fines, jail time
A legislative proposal originally intended to provide an additional layer of security to judges and prosecutors who deal with violent criminals has been altered to shield a broad range of personal information about state elected officials in Louisiana. (Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator) A legislative proposal originally intended to provide an additional layer of security to judges and prosecutors who deal with violent criminals has been altered to shield a broad range of personal information about state elected officials in Louisiana. Free speech and good government advocates are concerned officials could use the law, which will take effect unless the governor vetoes the proposal, to silence critics, punish journalists and keep unfavorable information out of the public's hands. Last week, the legislature gave final approval to House Bill 681 by Rep. Marcus Bryant, D-New Iberia, after Sen. Caleb Kleinpeter, R-Port Allen, added last-minute amendments to include statewide elected officials, members of the Public Service Commission and state lawmakers under an existing state law that shields their personal information from being made public. The amended version of the bill passed the Senate on a 36-0 vote and the House on an 89-0 vote. The law prevents the elected officials' home addresses, phone numbers, personal email addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, federal tax identification numbers, bank account numbers, credit and debit card numbers, license plate numbers from being published in government records or on a public website. Also protected under the law are marital records and birthdates. An official's church, the school or daycare their child attends and the employment location of their spouse, children or dependents would also be shielded. 'It's incredibly concerning and broad … in a way I cannot describe because I don't yet know how bad it's going to be,' said attorney Scott Sternberg, who works on First Amendment cases, adding that such prosecutions would likely be unconstitutional. If Gov. Jeff Landry allows the proposal to become law, the newly included elected officials could request their personal information be removed from public records. It could also be used to force someone to remove an online post with personal information about the elected officials. For example, the law could be wielded against somebody who raises concerns about conflicts of interest pertaining to the employment of an elected official's spouse or child. If that person does not comply, they can be sued and face misdemeanor charges that carry up to 90 days in prison, a $1,000 fine or both. The bill could allow the sealing of marital records to prevent the public from learning of allegations of abuse in a divorce proceeding. 'In Louisiana's constitution … we have decided the people are entitled to certain information, because … the people have learned to check up on the government every now and then,' Sternberg said. 'Whenever an exception [to public records law] passes … it limits the public's right to access,' Sternberg added. Broadening the scope of the bill without public debate troubles good governance advocates. 'Slipping such a significant public records exemption into a bill with little acknowledgment and no debate raises questions about what people are trying to hide and undermines transparency,' said Steven Procopio, president of Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana. Lawmakers and other individuals involved in Bryant's legislation have not been willing to say how the last-minute amendments got into the bill. 'These bills are not mine. I'm just bringing them,' Bryant said in an interview, referring questions to Zach Daniels, executive director of the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, who declined to comment for this report. Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple said he asked to have statewide elected officials added to the bill but not state lawmakers or Public Service Commission members. Temple said billboards bearing his home address have been put up around the state, prompting his request. Senate President Cameron Henry, R-Metairie, said he did not ask for the amendments but supports them. Public Service Commissioner Davante Lewis, D-Baton Rouge, posted on social media he had 'no clue' how PSC members were added, adding he did not support the legislation. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Protester stands up to National Guard: Trump 'laughs at you'
As the anti-ICE protests rev up in Los Angeles, people are looking for heroes who can speak truth to power. Sign up for the to keep up with what's new in LGBTQ+ culture and entertainment — delivered three times a week straight (well…) to your inbox! Los Angeles has become a focus of the national news lately as protests against the rising number of immigration raids being carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement have grown larger. 300 National Guard troops have already been deployed to the city, and President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of around 700 Marines to join them in trying to control the protesters, NBC News reports. Protesters have reported being hit with rubber bullets and stun grenades, among other "less lethal" weapons being fired and deployed by the police and National Guard. At least 56 people have been arrested, per NBC News. During a recent protest, a man went viral for calling out the National Guard troops that were deployed to Los Angeles to help quell the protests. "You feel tough with your assault rifles and your sticks, you should be standing here with us. You're on the wrong side of history. We know you've got a job to do, but you took an oath to the Constitution, not to the fascists in the White House," the man in the video says, standing up to the troops. "Think about what you're doing now. Think about what this means. Coming into our community, a peaceful fucking community, people working their jobs. They send in men in military fatigues with weapons of war into our community! And you stand here and you allow it." The man featured in the video continues, "I am sick and tired of it. You should be sick and tired of it. Do you think any of the people in the White House sending you these commands give a fuck about you? Not one of them do; they laugh at you. Our president laughs at you. He called you fools. He said the people who died overseas in the military were chumps. That's who you are defending right now." "Think about your place in history, ladies and gentlemen. Ask yourselves when you wake up tomorrow, I don't know if you have kids. Ask yourself, the future you want for your kids, is it this?" he concludes. It turns out that man is Aaron Fisher, @aaronjfisher89 on Instagram, and he is a staunch LGBTQIA ally! Now, Fisher (not to be confused with Marvel Comics's character Aaron Fischer, the gay Captain America, although this Fisher is a hero in his own right) is going viral online! Many of the comments celebrate Fisher's version of manhood and masculinity, praising him for standing up for what is right. "He's so hot for that. This is the energy we need from men," @becadidmyhair commented on Courier's post of the video. "When we say masculine energy, this is what we mean!" added @roseychey21. "How beautiful and sexy is a man that protects and stands up for others. This is the energy!" @queenelliez wrote. Instagram user @lorisinsta11 asked, "did this guy keep getting hotter and hotter the more he spoke, was it just me?" Based on all the other comments, she is far from alone in that opinion.
