The Court clearly states: “If the legislature’s goal in passing Act 689 was to protect minors from materials or interactions that could harm them online, there is no evidence that the Act will be effective in achieving that goal.”
CONTACT: PRESS@NETCHOICE.ORG
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark.—Yesterday evening, a U.S. District Court declared Arkansas Act 689 UNCONSTITUTIONAL and permanently blocked the law from taking effect, protecting lawful speech online and Arkansans’ privacy and security in NetChoice v. Griffin.
The Court concludes in its judgment: “Arkansas takes a hatchet to adults’ and minors’ protected speech alike though the Constitution demands it use a scalpel.”
“The court confirms what we have been arguing from the start: laws restricting access to protected speech violate the First Amendment,” said Chris Marchese, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “And while we are grateful that this law has been permanently struck down and free speech online preserved, we remain open to working with Arkansas policymakers to advance legislation that protects minors without violating the Constitution.”
“This ruling protects Americans from having to hand over their IDs or biometric data just to access constitutionally protected speech online,” Marchese noted. “It reaffirms that parents—not politicians or bureaucrats—should decide what’s appropriate for their children.”
Read Judge Timothy Brooks’ judgment and opinion HERE.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN: This is the FIRST permanent injunction NetChoice has obtained against laws violating free expression and free enterprise online.
- Under this order, the government’s attempt to condition access to lawful information online on its citizens jeopardizing their rights, privacy and security is permanently barred from being enforced.
- In its opinion, the Court found the law to be “a content-based restriction on speech, and it is NOT targeted to address the harms” the State of Arkansas claimed to be addressing.
HOW WE GOT HERE: Arkansas lawmakers, like many other states across the country, were reasonably concerned about minors’ safety in digital spaces.
- But as NetChoice warned, an unconstitutional law that violates the free speech rights and digital security of Americans will protect no one.
- This is why NetChoice calls for lawmakers to ensure they are following the Constitution when passing legislation—unlawful restrictions on speech do nothing to protect minors.
WHAT IT MEANS FOR POLICYMAKERS: As Judge Brooks’ ruling illustrates, lawmakers across America must take heed of the First Amendment. Rules like Arkansas’ are indeed content-based and speaker-based restrictions on free speech. They are thus subject to strict scrutiny—the highest burden a state must clear.
- The Court clearly states: “If the legislature’s goal in passing Act 689 was to protect minors from materials or interactions that could harm them online, there is no evidence that the Act will be effective in achieving that goal.”
- Constitutionality matters. NetChoice strongly encourages policymakers across the U.S. to pursue meaningful and legal policies to create a better digital experience for everyone, especially our children and our families.
NetChoice is committed to keeping online communication safe and free across America. We hope to work with policymakers on constitutional solutions to digital challenges.
Read the Court’s judgment here. Find full case resources for NetChoice v. Griffin here.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.