DENVER—Today, NetChoice sued Colorado to stop the government’s attacks on websites that host free speech. HB 24-1136 mandates that websites display state-approved “warning” messages to deter users from using online services and to promote the government’s controversial views on social media. States can’t do by “warning label” what they can’t do by outright ban.
Trying to chill speech through stigma is still unconstitutional censorship, and we’re fighting to stop it in NetChoice v. Weiser.
“At its core, this case is about one thing: compelled speech. Colorado is trying to force private websites to act as a mouthpiece for its preferred message,” said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “The State is free to share its view on any topic it wishes, but it cannot force private businesses to speak for it. When the government speaks for itself, there is no problem, but when it coerces others to speak, the government plainly violates the First Amendment.”
Read NetChoice’s initial complaint HERE.
Colorado is attempting an unconstitutional power grab by forcing websites and online publishers to become its unwilling mouthpieces. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a billboard, a newspaper or a website—the government can’t force businesses to malign themselves because politicians don’t like them.
Lawmakers genuinely interested in promoting a positive online environment for minors should focus on constitutional and effective measures, including investing in digital education and safety courses for students and empowering law enforcement to stop bad actors online. Additionally, promoting parental control tools and screen time managers that digital services offer now through public education campaigns would be particularly useful to address the government’s stated goal of passing this law. Helpful examples include resources from InternetMatters.org, Meta and Google.
True safety measures don’t require violating the First Amendment.
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.
Read the complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado here. Find full case resources for NetChoice v. Weiser here.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.