Court Blocks Louisiana鈥檚 Online Age-Verification Law for Violating First Amendment
Local Booksellers, Magazine Publisher, and National Trade Associations Secure Victory in Free Speech Case
BATON ROUGE, La. 鈥� A federal judge has signed an order permanently preventing Louisiana from enforcing a 2015 state law that required websites to age-verify every Internet user before providing access to non-obscene material that could be deemed harmful to any minor.
Judge Brian A. Jackson had previously granted a preliminary injunction in the case, Garden District Book Shop v. Stewart. The state then determined that it would not defend the constitutionality of the law and agreed to the entry of a permanent injunction. The judge signed the permanent injunction Friday.
The plaintiffs in the case are two independent booksellers, Garden District Book Shop and Octavia Books; Future Crawfish Paper LLC, publisher of Anti-Gravity magazine; the American Booksellers Association; and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. The lawsuit was brought by the Media Coalition and the 老澳门开奖结果.
The law, , required that 鈥渁ny person or entity in Louisiana that publishes material harmful to minors on the Internet shall, prior to permitting access to the material, require any person attempting to access the material to electronically acknowledge and attest that the person seeking to access the material is eighteen years of age or older.鈥� A failure to age-verify, even if no minor ever tried to access the material, would have been a crime subject to a $10,000 fine. Louisiana has a separate law that makes it a crime to lie when asked to acknowledge or attest to anything.
To comply with the law had it not been enjoined, booksellers and publishers would have had either to place an age confirmation button in front of their entire websites, thereby restricting access to materials that may be appropriate for all ages, or to attempt to review all of the books or magazines available at their websites and place an age confirmation button in front of each individual page that might be inappropriate for any minor.
The federal district court found in its preliminary injunction ruling that 鈥淸t]he ill-defined terms in [H.B. 153] do not adequately notify individuals and businesses in Louisiana of the conduct it prohibits, which creates a chilling effect on free speech.鈥�
鈥淭his is an important victory for me as a bookseller and for my customers,鈥� said Tom Lowenburg, co-owner of Octavia Books. 鈥淭his law would have placed an impossible burden on our website by forcing us to 鈥業D鈥� every person who visited the site before allowing them to browse our books or risk getting a $10,000 fine.鈥�
"I'm very relieved by the decision. This law would have had a definite chilling effect on our business, depriving our customers of books that they have a First Amendment right to browse and buy,鈥� said Britton Trice, owner of Garden District Book Shop.
鈥淲e are thankful for the court鈥檚 decision to permanently block this law that would have forced booksellers and publishers to restrict access on their online stores to what is acceptable for a 12 year old,鈥� said David Horowitz, the executive director of Media Coalition. 鈥淭he court agreed that parental controls are a more effective and less restrictive way for parents to limit their kids鈥� access to sexual material on the Internet without violating the First Amendment rights of adults and older minors.鈥�
鈥淭he court鈥檚 decision is a welcome recognition that the law鈥檚 online age-verification requirements impose burdens on publishers and Internet users and create a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech rights,鈥� said Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.
Plaintiffs are represented by Bhandari and Lee Rowland of the national 老澳门开奖结果, Justin P. Harrison and Stephen Dixon of the 老澳门开奖结果 of Louisiana, and Michael A. Bamberger and Richard M. Zuckerman of the law firm Dentons US LLP, general counsel to Media Coalition, Inc.
A copy of the order and more information about the case is available here:
/cases/garden-district-book-shop-v-caldwell-challenge-louisiana-online-censorship-law
Free Speech
Garden District Book Shop v. Caldwell 鈥� Challenge to Louisiana Online Censorship Law
Free Speech
Garden District Book Shop v. Caldwell 鈥� Challenge to Louisiana Online Censorship Law
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.