There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Court Tosses Arkansas Age Verification Law For Violating The 1st Amendment

Just after a judge granted an injunction against Texas’ adult content age verification law on 1st Amendment grounds, a judge in Arkansas did the same to that state’s social media age verification law. Trade organization NetChoice had challenged the law, and the court basically gave them a complete and total victory.

Just like the ruling in Texas, the opinion here is a good read. As with Texas, Arkansas relied on Tony Allen, who represents the age verification providers, to claim that the technology works great and the laws are fine. As in Texas, the court here is not convinced.

Also, as with Texas, the state in Arkansas had challenged the standing of the organization bringing the suit, and the court rejects that challenge. We’ll skip over the details because it’s just not that interesting. The important stuff is the 1st Amendment analysis.

First, the court looks to see if the law should be rejected on 1st Amendment grounds for being too vague (the Texas court talked about the vagueness issues, but didn’t rule on that point, only using the vague language to emphasize how the law was not narrowly tailored). Here, the court explains in detail how Arkansas’ law is way too vague:

...

Sharkwellington ,

During the evidentiary hearing, the Court asked the State’s expert, Mr. Allen, whether he believed Snapchat met Act 689’s definition of a regulated “social media company.” He responded in the affirmative, explaining that Snapchat’s “primary purpose” matched Act 689’s definition of a “social media company” (provided it was true that Snapchat also met the Act’s profitability requirements). When the Court asked the same question to the State’s attorney later on in the hearing, he gave a contrary answer—which illustrates the ambiguous nature of key terms in Act 689. The State’s attorney disagreed with Mr. Allen—his own witness—and said the State’s official position was that Snapchat was not subject to regulation because of its “primary purpose.”

Something has got to be done about this recent flood of vaguely worded (selectively enforced) bills.

Blackbeard ,
@Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

Gosh, where are the screeching freeze peach warriors now? Surely they’ll have a lot to say about this.

surely

…Bueller…

SeaJ ,

Making excuses why this is totally different and not actually free speech.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines