There’s been another ruling against age verification laws. This time, it is a ruling against the Tennessee age verification law.
Opponents to free speech were dealt another blow recently. This time, it has to do with age verification laws.
Age verification laws is one of the many strategies by government to employ massive censorship over the internet. The story that free speech opponents tried to give was that it was about “protecting the children” and preventing minors from viewing pornographic material online.
That cover story was completely blown apart over the last several months with multiple developments. This included the admission from supporters that age verification laws are little more than a stepping stone to a full porn ban. Others have started to do away with all pretense and continue on with plans to enact more mass government censorship and surveillance on the rest of the internet. This with efforts to enact similar government censorship laws on social media, app stores, and even video games. So, the mask was gradually slipping off over the last while over the governments true intentions with such laws. It leads one to wonder if the true intention is to fully ban all of the above thanks to the admission that the initial age verification laws are simply a stepping stone to fully banning pornography entirely.
The problem with such laws, however, is that they are blatantly unconstitutional. Existing caselaw and basic common sense concludes that such laws are unconstitutional – especially in the United States. In fact, there have been multiple rulings already pointing this out or leaning into the fact that such laws are likely unconstitutional. One good example was the ruling against Indiana’s age verification law last year.
Back in December, I noted that there has been a court challenge against Tennessee’s age verification law. Today, we can report that the judge presiding over the case has ruled against the law. From TechDirt:
The federal court decision [PDF] is a thoroughly enjoyable read, not just for its unabashed support for First Amendment rights, but also its extremely choice selection of citations, asides, and direct quotes from the Free Speech Coalition’s lawsuit.
The first paragraph is an absolute banger:
The First Amendment is not shy in its protective sweep. It sits at the top of our Bill of Rights as the “star in our constitutional constellation” because its light reaches orthodox and unorthodox expression alike. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570, 584–85 (2023) (quoting West Virginia Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943)). To be sure, freedom of speech is not absolute. But the door preventing the state from intruding into this area “must be kept tightly closed and opened only the slightest crack necessary” to promote state interests. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 563 (1969) (quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 488 (1957)). Based on the record at this stage, it appears that Tennessee has wedged its foot in the door farther than the Constitution will likely tolerate.
The second paragraph is just as solid.
The Protect Tennessee Minors Act stands in a graveyard full of similar content-based restrictions at the state and federal level that lived—and died—before it. It imposes criminal and civil liability on any individual or commercial entity that publishes a website comprised of one-third content that is harmful to minors without first verifying that each visitor is at least eighteen years old. 2024 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 1021, § 1 (to be codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-912) (“PTMA”). Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Attorney General from enforcing the PTMA before it becomes effective on January 1, 2025. Not only does the PTMA suffer from the same First Amendment fatalities as the state and federal laws that came before it, it also uniquely exacerbates those shortcomings in its overbreadth.
And the state’s “for the children” protestations are swept away before the third paragraph is even complete.
The legislature has a compelling interest in protecting children from harmful content, and that is uncontested. But in its attempt to protect children, the State will unavoidably suppress a large amount of speech that adults have a First Amendment right to give and receive. The legislature’s goal, however admirable, does not allow it to undermine an adult’s freedom of speech. Neither the legislature nor this Court can turn a blind eye to the Constitution.
Ah. That’s refreshing. Just a pure blast of constitutional righteousness, both in its original form and the way the hippies use the term. (Just to make it clear, my compliment of choice is “groovy,” which is similarly dated slang but at least was last uttered by a man with a chainsaw for an arm.)
We’ve seen time and time again that censorship advocates say that these age verification laws are not only constitutional, but “common sense”. This latest ruling completely rebuffs that notion, pointing out that you can’t simply turn constitutional rights on and off as you personally see fit. They are called “rights” for a reason. We see that and, in this case, the courts plainly see that as well.
Indeed, there is an ongoing case at the US Supreme court which is set to similarly decide the fate of such laws. What will come from that remains to be seen, but since the court agreed to hear the case at all (which the lower courts said that government internet censorship and surveillance is perfectly fine and dandy), there is at least a sliver of hope that they may simply repeat a previous ruling saying that such laws are, in fact, unconstitutional… again. Who knows for sure, though?
Either way, it’s a good day for supporters of free speech. Given how completely messed up the world is now becoming, we could all use a bit of good news here and there wherever we can get it.
