DENVER–Today, a U.S. District Court granted NetChoice’s request to temporarily halt Colorado’s censorship law that would have compelled online businesses to display government-mandated “warning” messages to their users while our case moves through the legal system.
“Today’s decision is a victory for free speech. The government cannot force private businesses to act as mouthpieces for its preferred view. Colorado is free to shout its own views from the rooftops, and it can even post its view on social media through Colorado’s accounts. But forcing websites to adopt Colorado’s view is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.
“The Constitution prevents the government from imposing its views on private actors. The Court’s decision today reaffirms this bedrock principle and ensures that just as the government cannot muzzle your speech, it cannot interfere with the message you want to deliver.”
The law, HB 24-1136, is nothing more than government censorship online disguised as a ‘warning label.’ The First Amendment is clear: politicians cannot compel private businesses to parrot the state’s preferred message.
Notable quotes from today’s ruling:
- “Colorado may not pursue this laudable goal by compelling social media companies to speak its expressive messages.”
- “Like traditional media, a social media platform is entitled to heightened First Amendment protection where it is engaged in expressive activity.”
- “The Supreme Court has made clear that content moderation is expressive speech in and of itself.”
- “The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech makes no distinction of ‘constitutional significance’ ‘between compelled speech and compelled silence.’”
- When a state ‘compel[s] individuals to speak a particular message,’ the state ‘alter[s] the content of their speech,’ and engages in content-based regulation.”
Read the District Court’s ruling here. Find full case resources for NetChoice v. Weiser here.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.
Key Takeaways of NetChoice v. Weiser:
- The First Amendment protects free speech, free expression and free thought. Colorado’s law violates all three.
- Politicians have learned that “public health” can be used to justify all kinds of overreach, including as a backdoor means for the government to control online speech. States can’t do by “warning label” what they can’t do by outright ban.
- Decisions like these make it seem like Colorado doesn’t trust parents to make choices for their family, instead usurping those choices for itself.
- True safety measures don’t require violating the First Amendment.
- NetChoice is fighting back because the principles of free speech and a vibrant internet are too vital to cede to government overreach.