Arkansas Social Media Age Verification Law Blocked By Federal Judge

A federal judge struck down Arkansas' Social Media Safety Act, ruling it unconstitutional for broadly restricting both adult and minor speech and imposing vague requirements on platforms. Engadget reports: In a ruling (PDF), Judge Timothy Brooks said that the law, known as Act 689 (PDF), was overly broad. "Act 689 is a content-based restriction on speech, and it is not targeted to address the harms the State has identified," Brooks wrote in his decision. "Arkansas takes a hatchet to adults' and minors' protected speech alike though the Constitution demands it use a scalpel." Brooks also highlighted the "unconstitutionally vague" applicability of the law, which seemingly created obligations for some online services, but may have exempted services which had the "predominant or exclusive function [of]... direct messaging" like Snapchat.

"The court confirms what we have been arguing from the start: laws restricting access to protected speech violate the First Amendment," NetChoice's Chris Marchese said in a statement. "This ruling protects Americans from having to hand over their IDs or biometric data just to access constitutionally protected speech online." It's not clear if state officials in Arkansas will appeal the ruling. "I respect the court's decision, and we are evaluating our options," Arkansas Attorney general Tim Griffin said in a statement.

"Constitutionally protected speech online?"

[nightflameauto]

Is that actually a thing? I thought the argument was always that social media is owned by a company, and therefore is *NOT* actually constitutionally protected speech. Or did we cross some line at some point that I missed where the whole town square idea somehow actually stuck with the social media companies?

Do we actually exist? Is this all just a simulation? It doesn't feel like we're in reality anymore, so why not just wing it and go for it I guess.

Re:"Constitutionally protected speech online?"

[Local ID10T]

The company that owns the platform can restrict your speech on their platform -just as you can restrict who talks about what in your home.

The government may not restrict what you discus in your home -or on a 3rd party platform.

Re:

[bjoast]

The company that owns the platform can restrict your speech on their platform -just as you can restrict who talks about what in your home.

In other words, supporting free speech in all but spirit. The coward's choice.

Re:

[Local ID10T]

So it's all good if we come over and scream in your ear all night? Because freeze peach?
Or do you think that what happens on your property should be under your control?
Just you? Or does everyone have the right to control other people's speech on their property?

Re:

[quonset]

The company that owns the platform can restrict your speech on their platform -just as you can restrict who talks about what in your home.

In other words, supporting free speech in all but spirit. The coward's choice.

One need only look at Twitter. People who have been criticizing the government, Trump, or Musk, have had their messages effectively hidden. You can't repost the comment either. It's still there if people know where to look, but it doesn't get upvoted (or whatever the term is) so others can't readily see it.

Re:

[DamnOregonian]

Sure, just like how anyone who ever kicked an asshole out of their house is taking "the coward's choice".
If you concede that, then ya- at least your position is consistent, if not still stupid.

Re:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

In other words, supporting free speech in all but spirit. The coward's choice.

There is a such thing as a toxic-customer, anyone who has posted here on Slashdot like ever should understand that.

Re:

[Valgrus Thunderaxe]

Or did we cross some line at some point that I missed where the whole town square idea somehow actually stuck with the social media companies?

I wish it would. Your derisive tone leads me to believe you don't think so.

Re:

[DamnOregonian]

I personally am voting to make your front yard "the town square".

Re:

[nightflameauto]

Or did we cross some line at some point that I missed where the whole town square idea somehow actually stuck with the social media companies? I wish it would. Your derisive tone leads me to believe you don't think so.

I wish it would too, but my derisive tone is specifically because most people mentioning the town square idea when it comes to social media get pimp-slapped and told to STFU.

Re:

[DamnOregonian]

I don't want to pimp slap anyone, but I do want you to acknowledge that you're basically nationalizing private property.
How would you feel if the platform was yours?

Re:

[spitzak]

It's the *company's* free speech that is being interfered with. The company is free to mess with what its users say, since it is not a government entity.

Re:

[Kernel Kurtz]

There is no town square unless it is owned by the town, and while it would be interesting to see a government run social media platform where censorship was constitutionally forbidden it does not take a rocket surgeon to know it would be a shitshow. Think Slashdot with everyone browsing at -1, all the time, forever.

Re:"Constitutionally protected speech online?"

[DamnOregonian]

The government is who is trying to place a limit on speech here, not the company.
So yes, that is precisely what the first amendment targets.

Re:

[freddienumber13]

And since the government communicates with citizens by using the Internet (via web services and any other manner of things), it is not possible to put any restrictions in place on how people access that communication. Passing any law that attempts to restrict access to government communication would fail a 1st ammendment test.