• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

Book publishers and authors are asking the Supreme Court to immediately halt a Mississippi law that requires social platforms to verify all users' ages, and prohibits minors from creating social media accounts without parental permission.

That measure, which took effect this month, will "have far-ranging and irreparable practical consequences," the Authors Guild, Association of American Publishers, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and others say in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Tuesday with the Supreme Court.

Those groups say the law burdens adults' and minors' ability to access some of the social platforms used by authors and publishers to promote books. One result, according to the organizations, is that booksellers won't be able to rely on social media for sales to the same extent as in the past.

"Many small-business booksellers and publishers rely heavily (often, primarily) on social media and other online media to advertise and sell their books, including new releases," the Authors Guild and others write.

They add that "reduced access" to social platforms is likely to cause online engagement and sales to decrease.

"It could even push some publishers and authors out of business entirely," the groups write.

"For example, if they have to increase expenditures on traditional commercials and advertisements, their margins will vanish, and they will be unable to compete with larger, more well-funded operations," the organizations add.

"What is more, for independent booksellers, just one or two releases a year can make or break the business -- so, reduced online engagement and fewer sales opportunities may doom the success of certain books and, with it, entire booksellers. This is especially so for young adult and fantasy literature, which is greatly driven by social media engagement, though the Mississippi Law will certainly affect all types of literature."

In addition to mandating parental consent for social media, the Mississippi law also requires social platforms to “prevent or mitigate” minors' exposure to “harmful material” -- defined as including material that promotes or facilitates eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual abuse and online bullying.

The measure applies to websites that allow users to create profiles and socially interact, with exemptions for employment-related sites and sites that “primarily” offer news, sports, commerce, online video games and content curated by the service provider.

The tech group NetChoice sued to block enforcement, arguing the law violates the First Amendment.

U.S. District Court Judge Halil Ozerden in the Southern District of Mississippi sided with NetChoice blocked the state from enforcing the statute against eight NetChoice members -- Dreamwidth, Meta Platforms, Nextdoor, Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat, X and YouTube.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed that injunction without comment earlier this month.

NetChoice recently urged the Supreme Court to immediately reverse the 5th Circuit and reinstate Ozerden's injunction. The group submitted its request to Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency appeals of 5th Circuit orders.

Numerous other organizations -- including digital rights groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and tech associations -- are also petitioning the Supreme Court to halt the law.

The digital rights groups argue in a friend-of-the-court brief filed this week that the law violates the First Amendment in several ways -- including by restricting speech based on content, chilling adults' ability to access social media by requiring them to verify their ages, and restricting minors' ability to communicate on social platforms.

The opponents note that the Supreme Court in 2011 struck down a California law that would have prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors, without parental consent.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch countered in papers filed Wednesday that the statute marks a valid attempt to protect teens from online predators.

"Requiring age verification and parental consent are common ways for states to protect minors," Fitch argued, noting that some states require parental consent for tattoos or piercings.

"If an online predator traffics a minor, the damage will be far greater than that from an improvident tattoo," the attorney general argues.

Fitch also argues that the Supreme Court's recent decision upholding a Texas law that bans minors from websites with a significant amount of pornography lends support to the validity of the Mississippi law.

The court ruled in the Texas matter that states could prohibit teenagers from accessing "explicit" pornography because such material is "obscene as to minors." Material considered obscene is not protected by the First Amendment.

Fitch argues that the Mississippi law, like the Texas pornography statute, "regulates certain websites to protect children from online harms that the state has power to regulate (here, harms that predators inflict on children)."

But digital rights advocates argued in their friend-of-the-court brief that the Mississippi law significantly differs from the one upheld in Texas because the Mississippi law restricts constitutionally protected speech, as opposed to material that's "obscene as to minors."