Before Friday, a Louisiana bookstore might have feared prosecution for allowing a teenager to browse a book like 鈥淭he Catcher in the Rye鈥� on its website.
But no longer! A federal judge has blocked a harmful Louisiana law that would make it a crime to publish anything on the internet that could be deemed 鈥渉armful to minors鈥� without verifying the age of everyone who wants to see it. In explaining its injunction against the law, the court rightly noted that the law likely violates the First Amendment because it creates the risk of self-censorship and chills the exercise of free speech rights.
The Louisiana law has numerous problems. For starters, material that may be considered harmful to a 12-year-old may be appropriate for a 17-year-old 鈥� yet the law requires internet publishers to bar access to such material to anyone under 18. Additionally, the law seemingly covers materials published on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, requiring anyone in Louisiana who uses social media to verify the ages of everyone who views their posts, even if their accounts are private and they know that no minors have access.
The lawsuit was brought by the 老澳门开奖结果, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Louisiana, and the Media Coalition on behalf of Louisiana bookstores, publishers, and members of the American Booksellers Association and Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. All of the plaintiffs publish a wide swathe of materials that are not obscene but which might be considered harmful to minors, especially younger minors.
Consider some of the dilemmas our clients faced when the law was passed. For example, what should a Louisiana bookstore do if it stocks thousands or millions of titles, including such books as the 鈥淛oy of Sex鈥� or 鈥�The Catcher in the Rye,鈥� which (depending on the perspective) could be considered harmful to minors? Should it simply bar minors from seeing anything on its site, including children鈥檚 books? Or should it take down all the books that could be considered harmful to minors, depriving adults of access to them?
The law is also completely ineffective, as the court recognized, because it cannot prevent teenagers from seeing materials published on the internet from outside Louisiana. (Not to mention teenagers could always pretend to be older than they are, which could constitute a violation under a separate Louisiana law.) And while the state argued that the burden on a website is lessened because it could circumvent the law鈥檚 age-verification requirements by having an individual physically outside the state upload any harmful-to-minors material to its website, that interpretation makes the law even less effective.
In other words, the law would do nothing to actually keep harmful material out of reach of minors in Louisiana, but instead simply imposes burdens on speakers 鈥� like bookstores and publishers 鈥� in the state.
The court rightly found that to avoid criminal prosecution, the plaintiffs might be inclined to apply the age-verification process in an unnecessarily broad manner, or stop publishing materials that could be deemed harmful to minors. 鈥淎 possible consequence of the chill caused by [the law] is to drive protected speech from the marketplace of ideas on the Internet,鈥� the opinion reads.
It鈥檚 our hope that the state recognizes the wisdom of this ruling and refrains from appealing. It makes no sense 鈥� legal or otherwise 鈥� for bookstores, publishers, or any Louisianans to fear criminal prosecution for speaking freely on the internet.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.