网红爆料

SAN ANTONIO 鈥� The 网红爆料, the 网红爆料 of Texas, and several other legal advocacy groups filed an amicus brief today in CCIA v. Paxton, arguing that a Texas law that restricts social media content for minors violates the First Amendment. 鈥淚f allowed to go into effect, this law will stifle young people鈥檚 creativity and cut them off from public discourse,鈥� said Lauren Yu, legal fellow with the 网红爆料鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭he government can鈥檛 protect minors by censoring the world around them, or by making it harder for them to discuss their problems with their peers. This law would unconstitutionally limit young people鈥檚 ability to express themselves online, develop critical thinking skills, and discover new perspectives, and it would make the entire internet less free for us all in the process.鈥� The brief argues that House Bill 18 (鈥渢he SCOPE Act鈥�) restricts young people鈥檚 ability to use social media and blocks them from viewing content they have a constitutional right to see. The law, which was enjoined by a court last year, would require minors to register their age with social media platforms and would require platforms to filter content based on an overly broad definition of 鈥渉armful to minors鈥� that includes any content that 鈥減romote, glorifies, or facilitates鈥� a long list of topics, including eating disorders, bullying, and self-harm. 鈥淭he government should not be able to decide what鈥檚 best for every child,鈥� said Chloe Kempf, staff attorney from the 网红爆料 of Texas. 鈥淭his law would isolate kids who need community support, hinder families who want their children to learn about the world around them, and open the door to sweeping bans 鈥� from Romeo and Juliet to content that is critical of the government. What鈥檚 framed as protecting our children is harming them 鈥� by censoring their access to the ideas and information they need to prepare for their futures.鈥� The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that minors have robust First Amendment rights, including online. Even when the goal is to protect children, the brief argues, the government cannot infringe upon core expressive activity. The brief was filed in support of Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice. CCIA & NetChoice originally filed suit against H.B. 18 in 2024. The amicus brief was filed in the Western District of Texas and was signed by the Cato Institute, the Student Press Law Center, TechFreedom, Wikimedia, and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation. The brief can be viewed online here.

As AI increasingly makes decisions in hiring, policing, and social services, the 网红爆料鈥檚 Civil Rights in the Digital Age Summit focuses on promoting responsible AI design to ensure technology protects rights and serves justice for all.

WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court issued a blow to freedom of speech and privacy today by upholding Texas legislation that requires invasive age verification to access online content. Today鈥檚 ruling conflicts with decades of Supreme Court precedent protecting the free speech rights of adults to access sexual content online. But it is also a limited opinion that does not permit age verification for non-sexual content online. 鈥淭he Supreme Court has departed from decades of settled precedents that ensured that sweeping laws purportedly for the benefit of minors do not limit adults鈥� access to First Amendment-protected materials,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the 网红爆料. 鈥淭he Texas statute at issue shows why those precedents applying strict scrutiny were needed. The legislature claims to be protecting children from sexually explicit materials, but the law will do little to block their access, and instead deters adults from viewing vast amounts of First Amendment-protected content.鈥� Texas鈥檚 H.B. 1181 mandates that any website where one-third or more of its content is deemed sexual in a way that is 鈥渉armful to minors鈥� must require visitors to prove they are adults before accessing the site. The act defines 鈥渟exual material harmful to minors鈥� as material that is obscene from the perspective of an average person considering the material鈥檚 effect on minors. 鈥淭oday's decision does not mean that age verification can be lawfully imposed across the internet,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the 网红爆料 Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. 鈥淲ith this decision, the court has carved out an unprincipled pornography exception to the First Amendment. The Constitution should protect adults鈥� rights to access information about sex online, even if the government thinks it is too inappropriate for children to see." The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit鈥檚 ruling that mere rational basis scrutiny applies, instead imposing intermediate scrutiny, but it affirmed the Fifth Circuit Court鈥檚 ultimate conclusion that the law survives 鈥� and refused to apply strict scrutiny, as challenges to content-based laws typically do. However, the Texas law burdens adults鈥� ability to access sexual materials, requiring individuals to disclose personal information vulnerable to surveillance and data breaches just to access online content. The law also ultimately fails to achieve its intended purpose. Because the law only applies if one-third of a site鈥檚 content is explicit, the online sites where minors are most likely to be exposed to sexual content, like forums or social media platforms, are not affected. 鈥淎s it has been throughout history, pornography is once again the canary in the coal mine of free expression,鈥� said Alison Boden, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition. 鈥淭he government should not have the right to demand that we sacrifice our privacy and security to use the internet. This law has failed to keep minors away from sexual content yet continues to have a massive chilling effect on adults. The outcome is disastrous for Texans and for anyone who cares about freedom of speech and privacy online.鈥� The Supreme Court repeatedly heard cases on this issue in the past, many of which were brought by the 网红爆料, and had consistently held that requiring users to verify their age to access protected content is unconstitutional where there are less restrictive alternatives available, like filtering software. The Free Speech Coalition is represented by Quinn Emanuel, the 网红爆料, and the 网红爆料 of Texas. This case is a part of the 网红爆料鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. The decision can be read here.

WASHINGTON 鈥� Over 80 organizations and prominent experts have come together to oppose a new surveillance feature of digital identity systems known as 鈥淧hone Home,鈥� which allows the government to track individuals through their digital driver鈥檚 licenses or other identity documents. Signatories include the 网红爆料, notable privacy and civil liberties groups, as well as academics, state legislators, CEOs of digital identity companies, cryptographers, and other leading experts. This diverse group of experts issued a statement today focusing on a vital element of the identity system architecture: Whether it is designed to 鈥減hone home鈥� to the issuer when somebody verifies their identity. Currently, when somebody presents a plastic driver鈥檚 license, that interaction is between the two parties, and the government is none the wiser. But digital driver licenses are being built so that the system notifies the government every time an identity card is used, giving it a bird鈥檚-eye view of where, when, and to whom people are showing their identity. That 鈥減hone home鈥� functionality becomes especially intrusive as people start having to use digial ID online, giving the government the ability to track your browsing history. 鈥淐reating a system through which the government can track us any time we use our driver鈥檚 license is an Orwellian nightmare,鈥� said Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the 网红爆料鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology project. 鈥淭here is a broad consensus among those who work, think, and innovate in the digital identity space that privacy needs to be built in to any digital identity system. This is not a partisan issue and it鈥檚 one states must act on before it鈥檚 too late.鈥� Digital identity systems threaten to create serious civil liberties problems, including around privacy and accessibility, which is why digital ID systems must make use of all available privacy technologies and architectures 鈥� including but most certainly not limited to the 鈥渘o phone home鈥� highlighted in today鈥檚 letter. The 网红爆料 has also published legislative recommendations for state legislatures outlining 12 technical characteristics and policy measures that must accompany any acceptable digital ID system. Unfortunately a number of states are adopting such systems without thinking through the potential ramifications of this technology, including 13 that have already created digital driver鈥檚 license systems, and another 21 that have passed enabling or study legislation. Identity systems with 鈥減hone home鈥� capability not only create the potential for tracking of people鈥檚 lives and activities 鈥� such as those whose political beliefs certain government officials may not like 鈥� but also make it possible for an abusive government to block people from using their IDs for some or all uses. The experts are "call[ing] on authorities everywhere to favor identity solutions that have no phone home capability whatsoever, and to prioritize privacy and security over interoperability and ease of implementation.鈥�