ALEXANDRIA, Va.—Today, NetChoice is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asking the court to halt SB 854 while our case moves through the legal system. If enforced, it will place unlawful barriers on how and when all Virginians can access free, lawful speech online, increase cybersecurity threats to families and usurp parents.
“Virginia is trying to ration access to lawful speech. Fortunately, the First Amendment flatly forbids this blatant censorship. The result is no different just because the speech in question happens online. Whether it’s reading books, watching documentaries on television, or engaging on social media, the government must leave the decisions about what to read, and for how long, to the individuals and their parents. We are optimistic the court will agree and stop Virginia from enforcing SB 854 as our case moves through the legal system,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.
Taske continued: “Virginia claims that it wants to empower parents. SB 854 fails in that goal. Rather than empower parents, SB 854 sets the government in control and usurps the parents’ right to make decisions for their families in the first instance. But there are constitutional alternatives–including those detailed in NetChoice’s Digital Safety Shield. These include developing educational campaigns on parental controls and working with parents groups like PTA’s to ensure they are reaching families. There’s a lawful path forward that doesn’t tarnish protected rights or violate privacy.”
SB 854 unconstitutionally targets and restricts lawful online speech. By mandating specific time limits on social media, Virginia’s government dictates how long its citizens can engage with documentaries or political discourse—a heavy-handed intrusion no different from rationing your time spent reading books or speaking in person.
The First Amendment prohibits such overreach. Adding a so-called “parental consent” exception doesn’t solve these legal flaws; instead, it compounds them by forcing families to surrender even more sensitive data to prove their identities and family connections, creating significant new privacy and security risks.
Read NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction here.
Find full case resources for NetChoice v. Miyares here.
Key Takeaways of NetChoice v. Miyares (Virginia):
- Imposing government-mandated time limits on social media use is no different than restricting reading books or watching documentaries: Virginia’s SB 854 restricts access to speech simply because it happens online. This violates First Amendment rights and will result in Virginians losing access to digital information.
- Virginia’s law poses a serious threat to cybersecurity and online safety: By mandating that users go through an identity verification process to determine a user’s age and their guardianship status, Virginia’s government risks the security of all their citizens—especially minors—by putting their most sensitive documents and information into a honeypot for online predators and cybercriminals to exploit.
- SB 854 usurps parents and seizes their role for the State: Parents and guardians are the best situated to determine their family’s online presence—not big government red tape that puts safety, security and free speech in jeopardy.
NetChoice is a trade association dedicated to vigorously protecting free enterprise and free expression online.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.