\n<\/p>\n
A federal judge blocked a Mississippi law<\/a> from taking effect that would have required age verification for all and parental consent for teens in order to make accounts on many social media sites. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n The preliminary injunction fell on the same day the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a pair of cases<\/a> challenging social media laws in Florida and Texas that sought to regulate social media companies\u2019 content moderation. SCOTUS sent the cases back to the lower courts but made clear that platforms\u2019 content moderation and curation was protected speech.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n NetChoice, the industry group that represents Meta and Google and was also lead party in the SCOTUS cases, brought the challenge to Mississippi House Bill 1126. The law was set to take effect on Monday and was designed to protect kids from sexually explicit content. It required online services with content feeds or chat rooms \u2014 likely including platforms such as Facebook or YouTube \u2014 to verify users\u2019 ages through \u201ccommercially reasonable efforts\u201d and obtain parental consent in order for minors to create accounts. Platforms that did not comply would open themselves up to legal action from parents. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n NetChoice argued the law would interfere with the rights of both adults and minors to access protected speech online. Mississippi\u2019s attorney general argued the law only regulates \u201cnon-expressive conduct,\u201d but US District Court Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden noted in the order that he was not convinced that was the case.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The court accepted the AG\u2019s assertion that \u201csafeguarding the physical and psychological wellbeing of minors online is a compelling interest\u201d but agreed with NetChoice that the legislation was not \u201cnarrowly tailored\u201d to serve those goals. The court said that the AG failed to show that NetChoice\u2019s suggested alternatives to the law to protect kids\u2019 well-being \u2014 like giving parents more information about how to supervise their kids online \u2014 would be insufficient. Asking kids and adults to verify their ages to access protected speech, the judge wrote, \u201cburdens adults\u2019 First Amendment rights, and that alone makes it overinclusive.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cWe appreciate the court\u2019s thoughtful and speedy review of this matter, but respectfully disagree that the Constitution blocks the State\u2019s effort to protect children online,\u201d Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch said in a statement. \u201cWe will continue to fight for this commonsense law because our children\u2019s mental health, physical security, and innocence should not take a back seat to Big Tech profits.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n NetChoice Litigation Center director Chris Marchese said in a statement<\/a> the group was \u201cpleased\u201d by the decision and that \u201cwe look forward to seeing the law struck down permanently.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n NetChoice has successfully gotten judges around the country to block laws with the stated goal of protecting kids online but that the group says would actually violate the First Amendment by impeding speech. See: California<\/a>, Arkansas<\/a>, and Ohio<\/a>. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n The latest win for NetChoice \u2014 combined with the Supreme Court\u2019s statement in its majority opinion in Moody v. NetChoice <\/em>and NetChoice v. Paxton<\/em> that content moderation and curation are First Amendment-protected expression \u2014 is a warning signal for legislatures across the country crafting tech regulations. The Supreme Court left open the possibility that tech laws could be crafted in ways that don\u2019t violate the First Amendment, but the guidelines it sets out for what is likely to violate the Constitution could make that a tricky path to follow. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cIt is not lost on the Court the seriousness of the issue the legislature was attempting to address, nor does the Court doubt the good intentions behind the enactment of H.B. 1126,\u201d Ozerden wrote in his order. \u201cBut as the Supreme Court has held, \u2018[a] law that is content based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the government\u2019s benign motive.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n