NEW ORLEANS, La.—Today, NetChoice expressed opposition to Mississippi’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in our case against the state’s law that fails parents, censors online speech and undermines digital safety, NetChoice v. Fitch.
In July, Mississippi appealed a District Court order in our case that temporarily blocked the law, HB 1126, from going into effect. Our brief filed today explains NetChoice’s opposition to Mississippi’s appeal.
“Mississippi’s law violates free speech rights, elevates governmental controls above parental authority and jeopardizes the online safety and security of all Mississippians. It prevents Mississippians from talking to friends, reading updates from family members, and discussing politics unless they submit to government-mandated age verification. In addition to violating their rights, these requirements expose all Mississippians to major cybersecurity risks by forcing them to hand over their ID’s and other secure documents just to access online services. Minors are already prime targets for hackers and identity thieves, and by creating a honeypot of their data, Mississippi’s law places them at even greater risk,” said Paul Taske, Associate Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “Parents need real, effective solutions that respect their rights—not big government taking them away. NetChoice is confident the Fifth Circuit will agree with the District Court and continue to halt this law while our case proceeds.”
In the brief, NetChoice argues:
- Mississippi’s law is unconstitutional because it disfavors the social speech of users as compared to other kinds of speech (e.g., professional speech by users, speech pre-selected by websites and speech available in other media).
- The requirement to conduct age verification is unconstitutional because it places a government-mandated barrier on access to protected speech and expression.
- The “parental consent” provision fails to empower parents and, instead, empowers the government and places parents in the back seat for their families’ lives online, while further undermining families’ cybersecurity.
- The law’s monitoring and censorship requirements violate the editorial rights of websites in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Moody v. NetChoice.
You can read NetChoice’s brief HERE. Read the District Court’s ruling from July here.
Find more information on NetChoice v. Fitch here.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.