• by Wendy Davis , 4 hours ago

Siding with the tech organization NetChoice, a coalition of digital rights groups are urging a federal appellate court to continue blocking a Georgia law that would require social platforms to verify all users' ages and prohibit minors under 16 from creating accounts, without parental permission.

The Protecting Georgia's Children on Social Media Act "will block minors and adults from accessing protected speech online—all minors under 16 who cannot obtain parental consent or are unable to provide sufficient proof of it; and anyone over 16, including all adults, when they cannot verify their age or are unwilling to do so," the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Demoracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation and others argue in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Monday with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

They groups add that the law "will also erase people’s ability to speak anonymously online and increase the risks of privacy invasions and data breaches."

NetChoice -- which counts large tech companies including Google, Meta and Snap as members -- sued over the statute, arguing it unconstitutionally restricts speech.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Totenberg in Atlanta blocked enforcement earlier this year, ruling that the law likely violates the First Amendment. Georgia is now appealing that ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last week, NetChoice asked the 11th Circuit to maintain Totenberg's injunction, arguing that the government can't constitutionally require teens to obtain parental permission to access lawful speech.

"The First Amendment prohibits the Act’s parental-consent requirements for websites to disseminate fully protected speech to minors," the group wrote, noting 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.

The ACLU and other organizations agree, arguing that the government violates minors' rights by restricting their social media access -- even if some content on social platforms is problematic.

"Valuable, positive expression and connection regularly take place on social media," the groups write. "At the same time, people can share distressing or upsetting information or engage in negative interactions. That problem is not unique to social media and, just as the government could not ban minors from reading newspapers (which contain distressing news) or showing up at town hall meetings (which might have heated public debate), the same holds online."

The groups add that requiring people to provide identifying information to access social media would "impermissibly burden the First Amendment right to anonymity."

Last week, a divided panel of the 11th Circuit allowed Florida to enforce a social media law that prohibits platforms with “addictive features” from allowing anyone under 14 to create or maintain accounts, and requires those platforms to obtain parental consent before allowing 14- or 15-year-olds to create or maintain accounts.

In a 2-1 ruling, the panel found that even though the law "implicates" the First Amendment, the statute likely is constitutional.

"The law does not apply at all to older minors and tailors its provisions to the ages of the young minors whose access it does restrict," Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Barbara Lagoa. "Rather than blocking children from accessing social media altogether, HB3 simply prevents them from creating accounts on platforms that employ addictive features."

Paul Taske, co-director of NetChoice's litigation center, stated last week that the group was disappointed in the ruling and "will consider all available options to ensure Floridians’ online communication is safe and free."