Court Sees Through California's 'Protect the Children' Ruse, Strikes Down AADC
The 9th Circuit Court ruled California's Age Appropriate Design Code unconstitutional, stating it regulates speech and imposes compelled speech through the Data Protection Impact Assessment, affecting smaller online platforms.
Read original article
The 9th Circuit Court has ruled California's "Age Appropriate Design Code" (AADC) unconstitutional, affirming that it regulates speech in violation of the First Amendment. The law, which aimed to protect children online, was criticized for its potential to suppress free speech, particularly affecting smaller online platforms. The court highlighted the requirement for businesses to file a "Data Protection Impact Assessment" (DPIA) that compels them to evaluate and mitigate risks of harmful content reaching minors. This requirement was deemed a form of compelled speech, as it forced businesses to determine what constitutes harmful content. The court noted that California's claims of the law focusing on conduct rather than speech were misleading, as the DPIA's purpose was to encourage censorship. The ruling follows a recent Supreme Court decision that emphasized the need for a comprehensive review of laws regulating online speech. While the 9th Circuit agreed with the district court's findings regarding the DPIA, it also indicated that further analysis of other provisions of the AADC is necessary. The court suggested that less restrictive means could achieve the state's goals without infringing on free speech rights.
- The 9th Circuit ruled California's AADC unconstitutional for regulating speech.
- The DPIA requirement was identified as compelled speech, violating the First Amendment.
- The law was criticized for disproportionately impacting smaller online platforms.
- The ruling aligns with a recent Supreme Court decision emphasizing comprehensive legal reviews.
- The court indicated further analysis of other AADC provisions is needed.
Related
SCOTUS Rules That US Government Can Continue Talking to Social Media Companies
The Supreme Court allows US government to communicate with social media companies, overturning an injunction. Court finds lack of evidence for direct censorship injuries. Decision may increase government-platform interaction.
Platforms Have First Amendment Right to Curate Speech
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed social media platforms' First Amendment right to moderate content. It differentiated laws affecting editorial processes and emphasized platforms' expressive activity in content curation, protecting their editorial choices.
US Supreme Court ruling on NetChoice cases: What does it mean for Wikipedia?
In July 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled on NetChoice's challenge to Florida and Texas social media laws, sending cases back to lower courts, leaving laws on hold and creating potential legal confusion.
Federal Appeals Court Rules Fair Use May Be Narrowed to Serve Hollywood Profits
The D.C. Circuit Court upheld Section 1201 of the DMCA, limiting fair use and raising concerns about corporate favoritism and government overreach, while the EFF plans to advocate for individual rights.
AI-powered 'undressing' websites are getting sued
San Francisco's City Attorney has filed a lawsuit against 16 AI websites for creating non-consensual nude images, seeking civil penalties and shutdowns due to violations of pornography laws.
16 commentsWhy did it successfully pass in UK (and other countries) and what are the differences in the version passed in UK in actual requirements (to businesses) and protections (to children) compared to this one?
Actual legislation at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x...
Like, consider a prior case of California legislation that was struck down
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan...
I think Mike Masnick and I both think it was good that that law was struck down, too. But do we think people who promoted it were insincere about believing it was harmful or undesirable for children to see violent depictions?
> Court Sees Through California’s ‘Protect The Children’ Ruse, Strikes Down Kids Code
AADC stands for Age Appropriate Design Code.
How does that work with the tax form you have to fill out every year. Or a variety of other compulsory activities related to the government.
While I agree the law should be stricken on first amendment grounds, this sentence, inasmuch as it implies anything factual about social media, is false and dumb. The evidence that social media is bad for kids especially girls is overwhelming.
https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/jonathan-haidt-on-how-to-...
> California Governor Gavin Newsom eagerly signed the bill into law, wanting to get some headlines about how he was “protecting the children.” When NetChoice challenged the law, Newsom sent them a very threatening letter, demanding they drop the lawsuit. Thankfully, they did not, and the court saw through the ruse and found the entire bill unconstitutional for the exact reasons we had warned the California government about.
> Specifically, they call out the DPIA requirement. This is a major portion of the law, which requires certain online businesses to create and file a “Data Protection Impact Assessment” with the California Attorney General. Part of that DPIA is that you have to explain how you plan to “mitigate the risk” that “potentially harmful content” will reach children (defined as anyone from age 0 to 18).
> And we’d have to do that for every “feature” on the website. Do I think that a high school student might read Techdirt’s comments and come across something the AG finds harmful? I need to first explain our plans to “mitigate” that risk. That sure sounds like a push for censorship.
It's some biased reporting here to be sure - but it's amazing how something like this gets so far as to actually be signed into law. It has significant and obvious flaws, the least of which are the constitutionality.
How have we gotten to a place where our elected officials - sworn to uphold the constitution - willingly and knowingly pass unconstitutional laws just to see how long they can get away with it?
Related
SCOTUS Rules That US Government Can Continue Talking to Social Media Companies
The Supreme Court allows US government to communicate with social media companies, overturning an injunction. Court finds lack of evidence for direct censorship injuries. Decision may increase government-platform interaction.
Platforms Have First Amendment Right to Curate Speech
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed social media platforms' First Amendment right to moderate content. It differentiated laws affecting editorial processes and emphasized platforms' expressive activity in content curation, protecting their editorial choices.
US Supreme Court ruling on NetChoice cases: What does it mean for Wikipedia?
In July 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled on NetChoice's challenge to Florida and Texas social media laws, sending cases back to lower courts, leaving laws on hold and creating potential legal confusion.
Federal Appeals Court Rules Fair Use May Be Narrowed to Serve Hollywood Profits
The D.C. Circuit Court upheld Section 1201 of the DMCA, limiting fair use and raising concerns about corporate favoritism and government overreach, while the EFF plans to advocate for individual rights.
AI-powered 'undressing' websites are getting sued
San Francisco's City Attorney has filed a lawsuit against 16 AI websites for creating non-consensual nude images, seeking civil penalties and shutdowns due to violations of pornography laws.