Supreme Court declines to block age verification law for social media
U.S. District Judge Sul Ozerden had said the law is too broad, and parents have others way of monitoring their children's use of social media.
The Supreme Court didn't explain its decision in the case. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that while Mississippi's law is likely unconsitutional, NetChoice didn't show that letting it be enforced during the legal challenge is sufficiently harmful.
NetChoice attorney Paul Taske called the court's decision "an unfortunate procedural delay."
"Although we're disappointed with the Court's decision, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment - not just in this case but across all NetChoice's ID-for-Speech lawsuits," Taske said in a statement.
A spokesperson for Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch said the state is "grateful for the Court's decision to leave Mississippi's law in effect while the case proceeds in a way that permits thoughtful consideration of these important issues."
Mississippi's attorneys say the law is a targeted effort to regulate social media platforms that let predators interact with children.
"The Act requires what any responsible covered platform would already do: make 'commercially reasonable' efforts to protect minors," they told the Supreme Court.
They said the law was prompted by a 16-year-old boy taking his own life after someone he met on Instagram threatened to expose their sexual encounter unless he paid $1,000.
And they said Ozerden's order blocking enforcement conflicts with the Supreme Court's June decision upholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites.
More: Supreme Court upholds Texas' age verification law for porn sites
NetChoice said the law forces every Mississippian - adults and minors alike - to surrender personal information to access online speech that's protected by the First Amendment.
"Social media is the modern printing press - it allows all Americans to share their thoughts and perspectives," said Paul Taske, co-director of the Net Choice Litigation Center. "Just as the government can't force you to provide identification to read a newspaper, the same holds true when that news is available online."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Federal grand jury indicts New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell after long corruption probe
A federal grand jury indicted New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell on Friday after a long corruption investigation. Cantrell's lawyer, Eddie Castaing, confirmed to The Associated Press that an indictment was returned, and her name was read aloud by a federal magistrate judge as a defendant. The charges weren't immediately known. The indictment is the culmination of a long-running federal investigation into Cantrell, the first female mayor in the City's 300-year history. Cantrell, who is term-limited, will leave office in January. The Democrat has clashed with City Council members during a turbulent second term and survived a recall effort in 2022.
The Herald Scotland
38 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Verdict for Brazil's Bolsonaro set for early September
Bolsonaro, who has drawn the strong support of US President Donald Trump and who remains under house arrest, is accused of leading a conspiracy to stay in office after his narrow election defeat in 2022 to current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Eraldo Peres/AP) Bolsonaro denies wrongdoing. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro and several of his allies headed a criminal organisation that plotted to overturn the election, including plans to kill Mr Lula and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is overseeing the criminal case. Prosecutors have presented message exchanges, handwritten notes and other evidence allegedly detailing the plot. Defence lawyers have argued that no coup went forward and that Bolsonaro allowed the presidential transition to Mr Lula to take place, undermining any allegations that he tried to thwart that process. There are two five-justice panels at Brazil's top court, and Justice de Moraes brought the case to the one he sits on. Bolsonaro, who governed from 2019 to 2022, appointed two members of the court, but both sit on the other panel. There are five counts against Bolsonaro issued by the country's prosecutor-general: attempting to stage a coup, involvement in an armed criminal organisation, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law and two counts involving destruction of state property. The prosecution finished presenting its case in July and the defence wrapped up its arguments this week. Bolsonaro's trial has gripped a sharply divided Brazilian public. It received even more attention after Mr Trump directly tied a 50% tariff on imported Brazilian goods to his ally's judicial situation. The US president has called the proceedings a 'witch hunt' against a political opponent, triggering nationalist reactions from many Brazilian politicians.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Part of Maryland digital ad tax law declared unconstitutional
Aug 15 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday declared unconstitutional a Maryland law prohibiting companies that pass on the costs of the state's first-of-its-kind digital advertising tax from telling customers why prices went up. Reversing a lower court ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with the Chamber of Commerce and two other trade groups that the restriction violated members' First Amendment free speech rights, while insulating Maryland lawmakers from criticism and political accountability. The offices of Maryland's Attorney General Anthony Brown and the only defendant, state Comptroller Brooke Lierman, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Aimed at larger businesses such as (AMZN.O), opens new tab, Meta Platforms' (META.O), opens new tab Facebook and Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab Google, Maryland's 2021 law taxed companies that generated at least $1 million of gross revenue from digital ad services in the state. Maryland imposed levies on a sliding scale based on companies' global revenue, and lawmakers said the tax could raise $250 million annually. The Chamber of Commerce, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association sued, calling the law a punitive assault on digital rather than print advertising. Friday's decision concerned their objection to a provision against passing on the cost of the tax "by means of a separate fee, surcharge, or line-item," saying it effectively forbade businesses from shifting blame to lawmakers. Circuit Judge Julius Richardson wrote for a three-judge panel, however, that the provision ensured that companies would bear economic and legal responsibility for the tax. He said Maryland didn't justify this, and the provision was facially unconstitutional. "The pass-through prevents companies from describing the tax in the one setting where the consumer is guaranteed to look: the invoice," the judge wrote. "Keeping out of hot water with voters is not among the interests that can justify a speech ban." Richardson added: "As much today as 250 years ago, criticizing the government - for taxes or anything else - is important discourse in a democratic society. The First Amendment forbids Maryland to suppress it." The Richmond, Virginia appeals court returned the case to U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby in Greenbelt, Maryland, to determine appropriate remedies. In separate statements, the trade groups welcomed the decision. "The Fourth Circuit was absolutely correct," said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. "Maryland tried to prevent criticism of its tax scheme, and the Fourth Circuit recognized that tactic for what it was: censorship." The case is Chamber of Commerce et al v. Lierman, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-1727.
