• by Wendy Davis , 7 hours ago

A Virginia law requiring social platforms to verify users' ages, and prohibit minors under 16 from accessing social media for more than one hour a day without parental consent, likely violates the First Amendment, a federal judge ruled late last week.

The ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles in Alexandria, prohibits state officials from attempting to enforce the law (SB 854) against any members of the tech group NetChoice, which challenged the statute in court. NetChoice members include Meta Platforms, YouTube, Reddit, and Dreamwidth.

"Virginia does not have the legal authority to block minors’ access to constitutionally protected speech until their parents give their consent by overriding a government-imposed default limit," Giles wrote in a 27-page opinion.

"The Court recognizes the Commonwealth’s compelling interest in protecting its youth from the harms associated with the addictive aspects of social media. However, it cannot infringe on First Amendment rights, including those of the same youth it aims to protect," she wrote.

Giles said in the ruling that the statute would impede adults' and minors' ability to access lawful speech.

"As NetChoice argues, the law burdens more speech than necessary as it requires all persons to verify their age before accessing speech that is protected for everyone," Giles wrote.

She added that the law would treat "functionally equivalent speech" differently.

"NetChoice provides example where under SB 854, a minor would be barred from watching an online church service if it exceeded an hour on YouTube," she wrote. "Yet, that same minor is allowed to watch provider-selected religious programing exceeding an hour in length on a streaming platform."

NetChoice sued over the law last November, arguing it would "cause an irreparable loss of First Amendment freedoms on a massive scale."

The group argued that the statute would prevent minors in the state from "vital channels of communication, education, and self-expression that their peers in other states may still access," while also imposing "burdensome age verification on millions of adults."

Virginia defended the law, contending it represented a "reasonable and common-sense" approach to combating "excessive" social media use.

Twenty-nine state attorneys general also backed the law, claiming it was "narrowly tailored to address Virginia’s compelling interest in protecting kids."

The attorneys general also argued that teens under 16 have "more limited" First Amendment rights than older teens, and that states "have an even greater interest in protecting them because they are more vulnerable to the harms posed by platforms."