Latest news with #freespeech
Malay Mail
10 hours ago
- Business
- Malay Mail
Texas keeps porn age-check law after US Supreme Court rejects free speech challenge in major online content ruling
WASHINGTON, June 28 — The US Supreme Court yesterday upheld a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify visitors' ages, rejecting arguments that this violates free speech and boosting efforts to protect children from online sexual content. The court's decision will impact a raft of similar laws nationwide and could set the direction for internet speech regulation as concerns about the impact of digital life on society grow. Texas is one of about 20 US states to institute checks that porn viewers are over 18, which critics argue violate First Amendment free speech rights. Britain and Germany also enforce age-related access restrictions to adult websites, while a similar policy in France was blocked by the courts a week ago. US companies like Meta, meanwhile, are lobbying Washington lawmakers for age-based verification to be carried out by smartphone giants Apple and Google on their app stores. The Texas law was passed in 2023 by the state's Republican-majority legislature but was initially blocked after a challenge by an adult entertainment industry trade association. A federal district court sided with the trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, saying the law restricted adults' access to constitutionally protected content. But a conservative-dominated appeals court upheld the age verification requirement, prompting the pornography trade group to take its case to the Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority. Under the law, companies that fail to properly verify users' ages face fines up to $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 if a child is exposed to pornographic content as a result. To protect privacy, the websites aren't allowed to retain any identifying information obtained from users when verifying ages, and doing so could cost companies $10,000 daily in fines. During arguments in January before the Supreme Court, a lawyer representing the Free Speech Coalition said the law was 'overly burdensome' and that its goal could be accomplished using content filtering programs. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the mother of seven children, took issue with the efficacy of content filtering, saying that from personal experience as a parent, such programs were difficult to maintain across the many types of devices used by kids. Barrett also asked the lawyer to explain why requesting age verification online is any different than doing so at a movie theater that displays pornographic movies. The lawyer for the Free Speech Coalition — which includes the popular website Pornhub that has blocked all access in some states with age verification laws — said online verification was different as it leaves a 'permanent record' that could be a target for hackers. During the court's hearing of the case in January, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, both Republican appointees, seemed to suggest that advances in technology might justify reviewing online free speech cases. In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down, in an overwhelming 7-2 decision, a federal online age-verification law in what became a landmark free speech case that set a major precedent for the internet age. — AFP
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Judge blocks Georgia's social media age verification law, citing free speech concerns
ATLANTA — Georgia has become the latest state where a federal judge has blocked a law requiring age verification for social media accounts. Like in seven other states where such laws have been blocked, a federal judge ruled Thursday that the Georgia law infringes on free speech rights. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg means that the Georgia measure, which passed in 2024, won't take effect next week as scheduled. Instead, Totenberg granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law until there's a full ruling on the issue. Georgia's law would require some social media providers to take 'commercially reasonable' steps to verify a user's age and require children younger than 16 to get parental permission for accounts. It was challenged by NetChoice , a trade group representing online businesses. 'The state seeks to erect barriers to speech that cannot withstand the rigorous scrutiny that the Constitution requires,' Totenberg wrote, finding the law restricts the rights of minors, chills the right to anonymous speech online and restricts the ability of people to receive speech from social media platforms. Georgia will appeal, a spokesperson for Attorney General Chris Carr said Thursday. 'We will continue to defend commonsense measures that empower parents and protect our children online,' spokesperson Kara Murray said in a statement. Parents — and even some teens themselves — are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people , and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety . Totenberg said concerns about social media harming children are legitimate, but don't outweigh the constitutional violation. Totenberg wrote that NetChoice's members would be irreparably harmed by the law. She rejected arguments from the state that the group shouldn't get temporary relief because it had delayed filing its lawsuit by a year and because the state would be required to give 90 days' notice before enforcing the law. 'Free expression doesn't end where government anxiety begins,' NetChoice Director of Litigation Chris Marchese said in a statement. 'Parents— not politicians — should guide their children's lives online and offline— and no one should have to hand over a government ID to speak in digital spaces.' It's the ninth state where NetChoice has blocked a law over children's use of social media. In Arkansas and Ohio , federal judges have permanently overturned the laws. Besides Georgia, measures are also on hold in California, Florida , Mississippi, Texas and Utah . Louisiana agreed to not enforce its law while litigation proceeds. Only in Tennessee did a federal judge decline to temporarily block a law, finding NetChoice hadn't proved that people would be irreparably harmed if the law wasn't blocked before trial. Georgia had argued the law was meant to protect children in a dangerous place, likening it to banning them from bars serving alcohol instead of restricting their speech.
The Independent
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Judge blocks Georgia's social media age verification law, citing free speech concerns
Georgia has become the latest state where a federal judge has blocked a law requiring age verification for social media accounts. Like in seven other states where such laws have been blocked, a federal judge ruled Thursday that the Georgia law infringes on free speech rights. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg means that the Georgia measure, which passed in 2024, won't take effect next week as scheduled. Instead, Totenberg granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law until there's a full ruling on the issue. Georgia's law would require some social media providers to take 'commercially reasonable' steps to verify a user's age and require children younger than 16 to get parental permission for accounts. It was challenged by NetChoice, a trade group representing online businesses. 'The state seeks to erect barriers to speech that cannot withstand the rigorous scrutiny that the Constitution requires,' Totenberg wrote, finding the law restricts the rights of minors, chills the right to anonymous speech online and restricts the ability of people to receive speech from social media platforms. Georgia will appeal, a spokesperson for Attorney General Chris Carr said Thursday. 'We will continue to defend commonsense measures that empower parents and protect our children online,' spokesperson Kara Murray said in a statement. Parents — and even some teens themselves — are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people, and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety. Totenberg said concerns about social media harming children are legitimate, but don't outweigh the constitutional violation. Totenberg wrote that NetChoice's members would be irreparably harmed by the law. She rejected arguments from the state that the group shouldn't get temporary relief because it had delayed filing its lawsuit by a year and because the state would be required to give 90 days' notice before enforcing the law. 'Free expression doesn't end where government anxiety begins," NetChoice Director of Litigation Chris Marchese said in a statement. "Parents— not politicians — should guide their children's lives online and offline— and no one should have to hand over a government ID to speak in digital spaces.' It's the ninth state where NetChoice has blocked a law over children's use of social media. In Arkansas and Ohio, federal judges have permanently overturned the laws. Besides Georgia, measures are also on hold in California, Florida, Mississippi, Texas and Utah. Louisiana agreed to not enforce its law while litigation proceeds. Only in Tennessee did a federal judge decline to temporarily block a law, finding NetChoice hadn't proved that people would be irreparably harmed if the law wasn't blocked before trial. Georgia had argued the law was meant to protect children in a dangerous place, likening it to banning them from bars serving alcohol instead of restricting their speech.
Associated Press
2 days ago
- Politics
- Associated Press
Judge blocks Georgia's social media age verification law, citing free speech concerns
ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia has become the latest state where a federal judge has blocked a law requiring age verification for social media accounts. Like in seven other states where such laws have been blocked, a federal judge ruled Thursday that the Georgia law infringes on free speech rights. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg means that the Georgia measure, which passed in 2024, won't take effect next week as scheduled. Instead, Totenberg granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law until there's a full ruling on the issue. Georgia's law would require some social media providers to take 'commercially reasonable' steps to verify a user's age and require children younger than 16 to get parental permission for accounts. It was challenged by NetChoice, a trade group representing online businesses. 'The state seeks to erect barriers to speech that cannot withstand the rigorous scrutiny that the Constitution requires,' Totenberg wrote, finding the law restricts the rights of minors, chills the right to anonymous speech online and restricts the ability of people to receive speech from social media platforms. Georgia will appeal, a spokesperson for Attorney General Chris Carr said Thursday. 'We will continue to defend commonsense measures that empower parents and protect our children online,' spokesperson Kara Murray said in a statement. Parents — and even some teens themselves — are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people, and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety. Totenberg said concerns about social media harming children are legitimate, but don't outweigh the constitutional violation. Totenberg wrote that NetChoice's members would be irreparably harmed by the law. She rejected arguments from the state that the group shouldn't get temporary relief because it had delayed filing its lawsuit by a year and because the state would be required to give 90 days' notice before enforcing the law. 'Free expression doesn't end where government anxiety begins,' NetChoice Director of Litigation Chris Marchese said in a statement. 'Parents— not politicians — should guide their children's lives online and offline— and no one should have to hand over a government ID to speak in digital spaces.' It's the ninth state where NetChoice has blocked a law over children's use of social media. In Arkansas and Ohio, federal judges have permanently overturned the laws. Besides Georgia, measures are also on hold in California, Florida, Mississippi, Texas and Utah. Louisiana agreed to not enforce its law while litigation proceeds. Only in Tennessee did a federal judge decline to temporarily block a law, finding NetChoice hadn't proved that people would be irreparably harmed if the law wasn't blocked before trial. Georgia had argued the law was meant to protect children in a dangerous place, likening it to banning them from bars serving alcohol instead of restricting their speech.
CBS News
18-06-2025
- Business
- CBS News
X sues New York over law requiring social media companies to report how they handle offensive posts
Elon Musk's social media platform, X, is suing New York over a state law that requires the company to report how it handles offensive content. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the law late last year, and it takes effect later this year. X claims the law infringes on free speech and on a 1996 federal law that, among other things, lets internet platforms moderate posts as they see fit. New York is improperly trying to "inject itself into the content-moderation editorial process" by requiring "politically charged disclosures," Bastrop, Texas-based X Corp. argues in the suit. "The state is impermissibly trying to generate public controversy about content moderation in a way that will pressure social media companies, such as X Corp., to restrict, limit, disfavor or censor certain constitutionally protected content on X that the state dislikes," says the suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan. New York Attorney General Letitia James' office said in a statement Wednesday that it was reviewing the complaint and will "stand ready to defend the constitutionality of our laws." What to know about the New York law in question The law requires social media companies to report twice a year on whether and how they define hate speech, racist or extremist content, disinformation and some other terms. The platforms also have to detail their content moderation practices and data on the number of posts they flagged, the actions they took, the extent to which the offending material was seen or shared, and more. Sponsors Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assembly Member Grace Lee, both Democrats, have said the measure will make social media more transparent and companies more accountable. The law applies broadly to social media companies. But X is among those that have faced intense scrutiny in recent years, and in a 2024 letter to an X lobbyist, the sponsors said the company and Musk, in particular, have a "disturbing record" that "threatens the foundations of our democracy." The lawmakers wrote that before Musk became, for a time, a close adviser and cost-cutter in President Trump's administration. The two billionaires have since feuded and, perhaps, made up. Since taking over the former Twitter in 2022, Musk, in the name of free speech, has dismantled the company's Trust and Safety advisory group and stopped enforcing content moderation and hate speech rules that the site followed. He has restored the accounts of conspiracy theorists and incentivized engagement on the platform with payouts and content partnerships. Outside groups have since documented a rise in hate speech and harassment on the platform. X sued a research organization that studies online hate speech — that lawsuit was dismissed last March. The New York legislation took a page from a similar law that passed in California — and drew a similar lawsuit from X. Last fall, a panel of federal appellate judges blocked portions of the California law, at least temporarily, on free speech grounds. The state subsequently settled, agreeing not to enforce the content-moderation reporting requirements.
