DENVER—NetChoice is in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, asking for HB 24-1136 to be halted while our case proceeds through the legal system. This is the first lawsuit of its kind for online services to reach a court hearing. HB 24-1136 is a Colorado censorship law designed to discourage citizens from using online services by mandating that websites display state-approved “warning” messages to promote the government’s controversial views on social media.
“This is NetChoice’s first challenge to a ‘warning label’ law, but this issue is not new. A key aspect of the First Amendment is that the government may not force private individuals or companies to act as a mouthpiece for the government. That is what Colorado’s law does to social media websites, and it is unconstitutional,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “Colorado is entitled to its view of social media, and it can shout that view from the rooftops with a bullhorn. But the government crosses the line when it tries to compel others to speak and adopt its view. That approach is as un-American as ever, and we’re confident the court will agree.”
Politicians can’t hide censorship behind warning labels, and we’re fighting to stop this practice in NetChoice v. Weiser.
In passing this law, Colorado has forced websites and online publishers to parrot the state’s message, which violates the First Amendment. The government cannot force businesses to speak a certain way or malign themselves because politicians don’t like them, whether they be billboards, movies, advertisers, newspapers or websites.
Read NetChoice’s initial complaint 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.