Tech industry group sues Arkansas over new social media laws
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A tech industry trade group sued Arkansas Friday over two new laws that would place limits on content on social media platforms and would allow parents of children who killed themselves to sue over content on the platforms.
The lawsuit by NetChoice filed in federal court in Fayetteville, Arkansas, comes months after a federal judge struck down a state law requiring parental consent before minors can create new social media accounts. The new laws were signed by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders earlier this year.
'Despite the overwhelming consensus that laws like the Social Media Safety Act are unconstitutional, Arkansas elected to respond to this Court's decision not by repealing the provisions that it held unconstitutional but by instead doubling down on its overreach,' NetChoice said in its lawsuit.
Arkansas is among several states that have been enacting restrictions on social media, prompted by concerns about the impact on children's mental health. NetChoice — whose members include TikTok, Facebook parent Meta, and the social platform X — challenged Arkansas' 2023 age-verification law for social media. A federal judge who initially blocked the law struck it down in March.
Similar laws have been blocked by judges in Florida and Georgia.
A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the latest complaint and looked forward to defending the law.
One of the new laws being challenged prohibits social media platforms from using a design, algorithm or feature it 'knows or should have known through the exercise of reasonable care' would cause a user to kill themself, purchase a controlled substance, develop an eating disorder, develop an addiction to the platform.
The lawsuit said that provision is unconstitutionally vague and doesn't offer guidance on how to determine which content would violate those restrictions, and the suit notes it would restrict content for both adults and minors. The suit questions whether songs that mention drugs, such as Afroman's 'Because I Got High,' would be prohibited under the new law.
The law being challenged also would allow parents whose children have died by suicide or attempted to take their lives to sue social media companies if they were exposed to content promoting or advancing self-harm and suicide. The companies could face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.
NetChoice is also challenging another law that attempts to expand Arkansas' blocked restrictions on social media companies. That measure would require social media platforms to ensure minors don't receive notifications between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
The measure also would require social media companies to ensure their platform 'does not engage in practices to evoke any addiction or compulsive behavior.' The suit argues that the law doesn't explain how to comply with that restriction and is so broadly written that it's unclear what kind of posts or material would violate it.
'What is 'addictive' to some minors may not be addictive to others. Does allowing teens to share photos with each other evoke addiction?' the lawsuit said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
34 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Runs Up Supreme Court Winning Streak, Amassing More Power
The US Supreme Court's just-completed term had a clear winner: President Donald Trump. With a 6-3 ruling Friday restricting the power of judges to issue nationwide blocks on presidential initiatives, the court put an exclamation mark on a term dominated by Trump victories. The court's conservative supermajority sided with Trump on both broad legal questions and an unprecedented barrage of emergency requests to let his policies take effect right away. The end result was a stack of decisions deferring to Trump. The court let him discharge transgender people from the military, fire top officials at government agencies and open hundreds of thousands of migrants to deportation. The Supreme Court repeatedly reinstated Trump policies found by lower courts to be illegal, and it undercut judges who said the administration had violated their orders. At times, the court gave little if any explanation for its actions, even as liberal justices blasted the majority for rewarding what they said was Trump's lawlessness. 'The court treated him as if he were a normal president, and I think that was probably a mistake,' said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor who teaches constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania. The court has yet to grapple with 'what to do with the president who does not seem to be motivated by public spiritedness or the good of the country and doesn't necessarily subscribe to American values like due process and liberty and equality.' The ruling Friday gives the administration a new tool to try to stop judges from putting policies on hold. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett faulted three trial judges for issuing so-called nationwide injunctions halting Trump's plan to restrict automatic birthright citizenship. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch,' said Barrett, one of three Trump appointees on the court. Trump, who thanked by name the six Republican-appointed justices in the majority, declared the decision a 'monumental victory.' He said the administration would move to lift holds judges have placed on a number of his policies, mentioning fights over refugee resettlement, federal spending and so-called sanctuary cities. 'The Supreme Court has finally put a stop to this judicial activism, which has abused our constitutional separation of powers for too long,' Alabama's Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall said in an emailed statement. The decision was one of five rulings the court released Friday as it issued the term's last opinions in argued cases. Among other decisions was one that backed Trump's position by declaring that parents have the right to opt their children out of public-school lessons for religious reasons. Earlier in the month, the court agreed with Trump in another culture-war clash, upholding state bans on certain medical treatments for transgender children. The court on Monday and Thursday will likely indicate new cases the justices will hear in their next nine-month term, which will start in October. Trump suffered a rare setback in May when the court blocked the administration from using a rarely used wartime law to send about 176 Venezuelans to a Salvadoran prison before they had a chance to make their case to a judge. 'This ruling was particularly significant because it showed the court's willingness to enforce constitutional constraints even on immigration enforcement — typically an area where the court defers strongly to executive authority,' said Stephanie Barclay, a professor who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown Law School. But the following month, the court appeared to undercut the decision when it let the administration resume quickly deporting migrants to countries other than their own. The court gave no explanation for the decision, which lifted a judge's order that gave people 10 days notice and a chance to argue they would be at risk of torture. The birthright citizenship case didn't directly concern the legality of the restrictions, which would upend a longstanding constitutional right. Trump seeks to jettison what has been the widespread understanding that the Constitution's 14th Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone born on US soil. The executive order would restrict that to babies with at least one parent who is a citizen or legal permanent resident. The practical effect of the ruling remains to be seen. The 22 states challenging the citizenship plan can still argue at the lower court level that they need a nationwide halt to avoid the financial costs and administrative headaches that would result if the restrictions applied in neighboring jurisdictions. And Barrett explicitly left open the prospect that people challenging policies can press class action lawsuits. A prominent critic of nationwide injunctions, Notre Dame law professor Samuel Bray, hailed the decision — but also predicted a surge of class action suits and new court orders blocking the citizenship policy. 'I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,' Bray said in a statement. Barrett cast the ruling as a nonpartisan one, noting that the Biden administration also sought to rein in the use of nationwide injunctions. 'It's easy to see why. By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached 'a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act was immediately frozen by a federal district court,' Barrett wrote, quoting from a law review article co-written by Bray and University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude. Critics of the court said that characterization missed a key point. 'It is true, of course, that universal injunctions have bedeviled both prior Democratic and Republican administrations,' Michael Dorf, a professor who teaches constitutional law and federal courts at Cornell Law School, said in an email. 'But the court fails to recognize the fact that eliminating a tool for courts to rein in the executive branch is especially perilous at this particular moment, when we have an administration that is already inclined to take a casual attitude towards judicial orders.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Houthi rebels claim missile launch at Israel following Gaza conflict
Warning sirens were heard in multiple areas of Israel before the military announced that the missile was 'most likely successfully intercepted.' read more Houthi supporters raise their machine guns during an anti-Israel rally in Sanaa, Yemen. AP Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi group stated on Saturday that it launched a ballistic missile toward Israel, citing Israel's actions in Gaza as the reason. Warning sirens were heard in multiple areas of Israel before the military announced that the missile was 'most likely successfully intercepted.' This marks the first Houthi-claimed missile attack on Israel since the June 24 ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which followed a 12-day conflict. Rebel military spokesperson Yahya Saree said in a statement that the group targeted a 'sensitive Israeli enemy target in the occupied area of Beersheba using a Dhu al-Fiqar ballistic missile'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The attack was in 'response to the crimes of the criminal Zionist enemy against civilians in the Gaza Strip', Saree added. The Houthis have launched repeated missile and drone attacks against Israel since their Palestinian ally Hamas's October 2023 attack on Israel sparked the Gaza war. The Iran-backed rebels, who say they are acting in solidarity with Palestinians, paused their attacks during a two-month ceasefire that ended in March, but renewed them after Israel resumed its offensive. Israel has carried out several retaliatory strikes in Yemen, targeting Houthi-held ports and the airport in the rebel-held capital Sanaa. Saree said the rebel administration would 'continue its supportive operations until the aggression against Gaza stops and the siege is lifted'.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Todd and Julie Chrisley set to break silence on their pardon in interview with Lara Trump: When and where to watch
Almost a month after Todd and Julie Chrisley received a full presidential pardon from Donald Trump, the reality TV stars will make an appearance in a televised interview hosted by the US President's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump. The exclusive episode of My View with Lara Trump will air on Saturday, June 28, 2025, at 9 pm ET on Fox News Channel. Todd and Julie Chrisley to appear on Lara Trump's show after presidential pardon. (Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP, File)(Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP) According to USA Today, the interview will be their first public appearance since their release from federal prison. Todd Chrisley was held at FPC Pensacola in Florida, while Julie was held at FMC Lexington in Kentucky. Their release came just a day after Trump signed off on their pardons on May 28, ending their two-year prison term, which began in January 2023 after convictions for tax evasion and bank fraud. Also read: Who is Mohamed A? Syrian teenager charged over plot to attack Taylor Swift's Vienna concert Reportedly, Lara Trump's show My View won't feature just Todd and Julie but also their children, Savannah and Grayson Chrisley, as well. Their daughter publicly advocated for her parents' release and for prison reform. She previously appeared on the show, just two weeks before the pardons were granted. The Chrisleys will be discussing their experience in prison, their release, and what lies ahead for the family. The episode is expected to delve into their side of the story. The Chrisley family got famous from their USA Network show, Chrisley Knows Best, which showed off their luxurious lives in Atlanta and Nashville. However, their situation took a turn when they were convicted in 2022 of tax evasion and defrauding banks of more than $30 million. About Lara Trump Born on October 12, 1982, Lara Trump is an American political figure and former co-chair of the Republican National Committee. She is married to Eric Trump, the son of US President Donald Trump. She has worked in various media roles, including as a producer for Inside Edition. According to a People report, Lara, who studied communications at North Carolina State University, has previously worked as a pastry chef and a personal trainer. She has also studied at the French Culinary Institute in New York. FAQs Q: When will the Chrisley interview air? The episode featuring Todd and Julie Chrisley will air on Saturday, June 28, 2025, at 9 pm ET on My View with Lara Trump on Fox News Channel. Q: What is My View with Lara Trump? My View with Lara Trump is a Fox News Channel talk show hosted by Lara Trump, daughter-in-law of President Donald Trump. Q: Why were the Chrisleys pardoned? Donald Trump issued a full pardon on May 28, 2025, for Todd and Julie Chrisley, who were serving time for tax evasion and fraud. Q: Who else will appear in the interview? Savannah and Grayson Chrisley, the couple's children, also appear in the episode.
