Arkansas social media age law struck down, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders seeks amended version
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
Axios
33 minutes ago
- Axios
Judge blocks Arkansas Ten Commandments law in 4 NWA school districts
Editor's note: The headline, URL and content of this story were corrected to reflect that the judge temporarily blocked the law from taking effect in four districts (not in the entire state). A federal judge Aug. 4 temporarily blocked in four school districts an Arkansas law that now requires public school classrooms to prominently display the Ten Commandments. Why it matters: Some supporters of the change see the Ten Commandments as a historical document that helped shape U.S. law, but the plaintiffs in Bentonville, Fayetteville, Springdale and Siloam Springs argue that displaying the document in public schools infringes on their constitutional right to freedom of religion. State of play: Arkansas Act 573, passed by the state Legislature this year and signed into law by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, requires that every "public institution of higher education and elementary and secondary school library and classroom in the state" prominently display a copy of the "historical representation of the Ten Commandments." The posters areto be at least 16 inches by 20 inches and in a legible typeface. All copies are to be donated or purchased through private funds, but if a donated copy doesn't meet the requirements, the school can replace it using public funds. The big picture: In his ruling, U.S. Western District of Arkansas Judge Timothy Brooks cited similar laws in nearby Louisiana and Texas. The Louisiana law has been declared unconstitutional, and the Texas law is being challenged, though a ruling hasn't yet been declared. Oklahoma's state superintendent issued guidelines last year that every classroom have a copy of the Bible and the Ten Commandments and that teachers should include the documents in the curriculum. The guidance is being challenged. At least 15 other states had proposed some form of the law as of February. What they're saying: "Forty-five years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a Ten Commandments law nearly identical to the one the Arkansas General Assembly passed earlier this year. That precedent remains binding on this Court and renders Arkansas Act 573 plainly unconstitutional," Brooks wrote in the ruling. "Why would Arkansas pass an obviously unconstitutional law? Most likely because the State is part of a coordinated strategy among several states to inject Christian religious doctrine into public-school classrooms." The other side: "In Arkansas, we do in fact believe that murder is wrong and stealing is bad. It is entirely appropriate to display the Ten Commandments — the basis of all Western law and morality — as a reminder to students, state employees, and every Arkansan who enters a government building," Sanders said in a statement emailed to Axios. Several state lawmakers sponsoring the bill did not immediately respond to Axios' inquiries.
Boston Globe
36 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Boston Marathon bomber seeks full-panel rehearing in fight to remove judge
Tsarnaev, 32, was sentenced to death after he admitted during trial to Advertisement However, during the 2015 trial, U.S. District Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. declined defense requests to investigate two jurors' potentially biased social-media activity. In March 2024, the First Circuit One juror claimed she had not commented on the case, but the defense found she had tweeted or retweeted 22 times about the bombings, including calling Tsarnaev a 'piece of garbage.' Another juror said none of his Facebook friends had discussed the trial, though one friend urged him to 'play the part' so he could get on the jury and send Tsarnaev 'to jail where he will be taken care of.' O'Toole was ordered to go back and investigate the issue. But Tsarnaev's defense argues O'Toole shouldn't be the one to oversee the reinvestigation, arguing that comments he made about the case on a podcast and at public events — praising jurors and defending how they were chosen — raise concerns about his impartiality. Advertisement In Thursday's petition, the lawyers said neither O'Toole's public statements. The attorneys added that a full-court review is needed to 'promote public confidence in the judiciary' given the high-profile nature of the case, and to ensure the remand proceedings are both fair and appear fair. Six of the court's 10 active judges would need to approve the request for an en banc rehearing. Approval of an en banc rehearing is rare and generally allowed only in cases of significant legal importance, conflict, or other compelling reasons. On April 15, 2013, Tsarnaev placed a bomb in a backpack in front of the Forum restaurant on Boylston Street that killed Evidence showed that his older brother, The jury that heard Tsarnaev's trial recommended death, rejecting claims that the then-19-year-old was not responsible because of the influence of his brother. The death sentence was Advertisement Rita Chandler can be reached at
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Mississippi social media law upheld
In an emergency ruling Thursday, the justices denied internet trade group NetChoice's request to reinstate a lower court's order protecting social media giants like Meta, X and YouTube from the new requirements. The Supreme Court did not explain its order or disclose the vote count, as is typical in emergency cases. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, wrote a solo opinion cautioning that NetChoice is likely to ultimately succeed on its First Amendment claims even though he was siding against the group at this stage. 'In short, under this Court's case law as it currently stands, the Mississippi law is likely unconstitutional,' Kavanaugh's brief opinion reads. 'Nonetheless, because NetChoice has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time, I concur in the Court's denial of the application for interim relief,' the conservative justice continued. NetChoice had asked the court to intervene after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted the district judge's decision shielding the platforms from the 2024 law without explanation. 'Neither NetChoice nor this Court can know why the Fifth Circuit believed this law satisfies the First Amendment's stringent demands or deviated from the seven other decisions enjoining similar laws,' NetChoice wrote in its request. It argued it would face 'immediate, irreparable' injury should the law be allowed to go into effect. Mississippi's law establishes requirements for social media companies to confirm their users' ages. Minors must have express consent from a parent or guardian to use the platform, and covered websites must strive to eliminate their exposure to harmful material or face a $10,000 fine. U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden found the law unconstitutional as applied to NetChoice members YouTube, X, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Nextdoor, Dreamwidth and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. The Hill's Ella Lee has more here.
