• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

Siding against the tech organization NetChoice, a federal appellate panel lifted a block on a Georgia law that requires social platforms to verify all users' ages and prohibit minors under 16 from creating accounts, without parental permission.

The ruling -- issued Thursday by a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals -- reversed a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Totenberg in Atlanta, who blocked enforcement.

Totenberg said in an opinion issued last year that Protecting Georgia's Children on Social Media Act (SB 351) likely violates the First Amendment.

In addition to the age verification and parental consent requirements, the law prohibits platforms from displaying ads to users under age 16 based on “personal information” other than ages and locations.

The law's restrictions apply to some platforms that allow account holders to create profiles, upload material, view user-generated content, and interact with other users.

But the law also exempts a broad array of companies that often incorporate social functionality -- including news and entertainment sites, e-commerce businesses and interactive gaming platforms.

Totenberg specifically said in her ruling that the parental consent mandate likely "would dramatically curb minors’ ability to speak and access to speech," and that the age verification requirement would "potentially all but kill anonymous speech online," despite Supreme Court decisions upholding people's right to speak anonymously.

Georgia appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which reversed Totenberg's ruling and returned the case to her for further proceedings.

The appellate judges essentially found that some applications of the law might not violate the First Amendment. For instance, the court said, some social platforms host pornography, which is protected by the First Amendment for adults -- but not for minors.

"It’s not necessarily true that social-media websites engage exclusively in 'fully protected' speech," Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Robert Luck and Gerald Tjoflat.

"The state contends (and no one seems to dispute) that some platforms, like X and Reddit, do host at least some pornography," Newsom added. "We agree with the state that SB 351’s application (if any) to sites like X and Reddit raises different First Amendment questions than its application to others."

NetChoice indicated Thursday that it plans to continue to challenge the law.

“As we evaluate our next legal steps, we remain committed to fighting for Georgians’ right to free expression online and ensuring parents, not the government, stay in charge of decisions for their families," Paul Taske, director of the group's litigation center, stated.