reason.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
75.2.24.81
Public Scan
URL:
https://reason.com/2024/01/29/utah-would-rather-repeal-social-media-age-check-law-than-defend-it-in-court/
Submission: On February 13 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Submission: On February 13 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Form analysis 4 forms found in the DOM
GET https://reason.com/
<form role="search" method="get" class="search-form" action="https://reason.com/">
<label>
<span class="screen-reader-text">Search for:</span>
<input type="search" class="search-field" placeholder="Search …" value="" name="s">
</label>
<input type="submit" class="search-submit" value="Search">
</form>POST
<form method="post" id="gform_0" class="recaptcha-v3-initialized"><input type="hidden" name="login_redirect" value="/2024/01/29/utah-would-rather-repeal-social-media-age-check-law-than-defend-it-in-court/">
<div class="gform_heading">
<h3 class="gform_title">Login Form</h3>
</div>
<div class="gform_body">
<div id="gform_fields_login" class="gform_fields top_label">
<div id="field_0_1" class="gfield gfield--type-text gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_1"><label class="gfield_label gform-field-label"
for="input_1">Username<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
<div class="ginput_container ginput_container_text"><input name="input_1" id="input_1" type="text" value="" class="" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false"> </div>
</div>
<div id="field_0_2" class="gfield gfield--type-text gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_2"><label class="gfield_label gform-field-label"
for="input_2">Password<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
<div class="ginput_container ginput_container_text"><input name="input_2" id="input_2" type="password" value="" class="" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false"> </div>
</div>
<div id="field_0_3" class="gfield gfield--type-remember_me field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below hidden_label gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_3"><label
class="gfield_label gform-field-label screen-reader-text gfield_label_before_complex"></label>
<div class="ginput_container ginput_container_checkbox">
<div class="gfield_checkbox" id="input_3">
<div class="gchoice gchoice_3">
<input class="gfield-choice-input" name="input_3.1" type="checkbox" value="1" id="choice_3">
<label for="choice_3" id="label_3">Remember Me</label>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gform_footer top_label"> <button type="submit" id="gform_submit_button_0" class="gform_button button"
onclick="if(window["gf_submitting_0"]){return false;} if( !jQuery("#gform_0")[0].checkValidity || jQuery("#gform_0")[0].checkValidity()){window["gf_submitting_0"]=true;} "
onkeypress="if( event.keyCode == 13 ){ if(window["gf_submitting_0"]){return false;} if( !jQuery("#gform_0")[0].checkValidity || jQuery("#gform_0")[0].checkValidity()){window["gf_submitting_0"]=true;} jQuery("#gform_0").trigger("submit",[true]); }">Login</button>
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="is_submit_0" value="1">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submit" value="0">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_unique_id" value="">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="state_0" value="WyJbXSIsIjVmZDk0MDRiMTc0NTYwODJmYTIwNGZlZDYxN2ViYzJjIl0=">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_target_page_number_0" id="gform_target_page_number_0" value="0">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_source_page_number_0" id="gform_source_page_number_0" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="gform_field_values" value="">
</div>
</form>POST /2024/01/29/utah-would-rather-repeal-social-media-age-check-law-than-defend-it-in-court/
<form method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data" id="gform_30" class="incontent-email-signup recaptcha-v3-initialized" action="/2024/01/29/utah-would-rather-repeal-social-media-age-check-law-than-defend-it-in-court/" data-formid="30" novalidate="">
<div class="gf_invisible ginput_recaptchav3" data-sitekey="6LeMnkUaAAAAALL8T1-XAyB7vxpOeTExu6KwR48-" data-tabindex="0"><input id="input_5c40e51994eb2fd13f5e82830c1ab96f" class="gfield_recaptcha_response" type="hidden"
name="input_5c40e51994eb2fd13f5e82830c1ab96f" value=""></div>
<div class="gform-body gform_body">
<div id="gform_fields_30" class="gform_fields top_label form_sublabel_below description_below">
<div id="field_30_1" class="gfield gfield--type-email gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below hidden_label gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_30_1"><label
class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_30_1">Email<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
<div class="ginput_container ginput_container_email"> <input name="input_1" id="input_30_1" type="email" value="" class="large" placeholder="Email Address" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false"> </div>
</div>
<div id="field_30_2" class="gfield gfield--type-honeypot gform_validation_container field_sublabel_below gfield--has-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_30_2"><label
class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_30_2">Name</label>
<div class="ginput_container"><input name="input_2" id="input_30_2" type="text" value="" autocomplete="new-password"></div>
<div class="gfield_description" id="gfield_description_30_2">This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gform_footer top_label"> <button type="submit" id="gform_submit_button_30" class="gform_button button"
onclick="if(window["gf_submitting_30"]){return false;} if( !jQuery("#gform_30")[0].checkValidity || jQuery("#gform_30")[0].checkValidity()){window["gf_submitting_30"]=true;} "
onkeypress="if( event.keyCode == 13 ){ if(window["gf_submitting_30"]){return false;} if( !jQuery("#gform_30")[0].checkValidity || jQuery("#gform_30")[0].checkValidity()){window["gf_submitting_30"]=true;} jQuery("#gform_30").trigger("submit",[true]); }">Submit</button>
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="is_submit_30" value="1"> <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submit" value="30"> <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_unique_id" value=""> <input type="hidden"
class="gform_hidden" name="state_30" value="WyJbXSIsIjVmZDk0MDRiMTc0NTYwODJmYTIwNGZlZDYxN2ViYzJjIl0="> <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_target_page_number_30" id="gform_target_page_number_30" value="0"> <input type="hidden"
class="gform_hidden" name="gform_source_page_number_30" id="gform_source_page_number_30" value="1"> <input type="hidden" name="gform_field_values" value=""> </div>
<p style="display: none !important;" class="akismet-fields-container" data-prefix="ak_"><label>Δ<textarea name="ak_hp_textarea" cols="45" rows="8" maxlength="100"></textarea></label><input type="hidden" id="ak_js_1" name="ak_js"
value="1707793116308">
<script>
document.getElementById("ak_js_1").setAttribute("value", (new Date()).getTime());
</script>
</p>
</form>POST /2024/01/29/utah-would-rather-repeal-social-media-age-check-law-than-defend-it-in-court/#gf_17
<form method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data" target="gform_ajax_frame_17" id="gform_17" class="puprf-signup-widget recaptcha-v3-initialized" action="/2024/01/29/utah-would-rather-repeal-social-media-age-check-law-than-defend-it-in-court/#gf_17"
data-formid="17" novalidate="">
<div class="gf_invisible ginput_recaptchav3" data-sitekey="6LeMnkUaAAAAALL8T1-XAyB7vxpOeTExu6KwR48-" data-tabindex="0"><input id="input_9ae663dc72ef42b46f2cf3a53ec042e1" class="gfield_recaptcha_response" type="hidden"
name="input_9ae663dc72ef42b46f2cf3a53ec042e1" value=""></div>
<div class="gform-body gform_body">
<div id="gform_fields_17" class="gform_fields top_label form_sublabel_below description_below">
<div id="field_17_1" class="gfield gfield--type-email gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below hidden_label gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_17_1"><label
class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_17_1">Email<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
<div class="ginput_container ginput_container_email">
<input name="input_1" id="input_17_1" type="email" value="" class="large" placeholder="Email Address" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false">
</div>
</div>
<div id="field_17_2" class="gfield gfield--type-honeypot gform_validation_container field_sublabel_below gfield--has-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_17_2"><label
class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_17_2">Email</label>
<div class="ginput_container"><input name="input_2" id="input_17_2" type="text" value="" autocomplete="new-password"></div>
<div class="gfield_description" id="gfield_description_17_2">This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gform_footer top_label"> <button type="submit" id="gform_submit_button_17" class="gform_button button"
onclick="if(window["gf_submitting_17"]){return false;} if( !jQuery("#gform_17")[0].checkValidity || jQuery("#gform_17")[0].checkValidity()){window["gf_submitting_17"]=true;} "
onkeypress="if( event.keyCode == 13 ){ if(window["gf_submitting_17"]){return false;} if( !jQuery("#gform_17")[0].checkValidity || jQuery("#gform_17")[0].checkValidity()){window["gf_submitting_17"]=true;} jQuery("#gform_17").trigger("submit",[true]); }">Submit</button>
<input type="hidden" name="gform_ajax" value="form_id=17&title=&description=1&tabindex=0&theme=data-form-theme='gravity-theme'">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="is_submit_17" value="1">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submit" value="17">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_unique_id" value="">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="state_17" value="WyJbXSIsIjVmZDk0MDRiMTc0NTYwODJmYTIwNGZlZDYxN2ViYzJjIl0=">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_target_page_number_17" id="gform_target_page_number_17" value="0">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_source_page_number_17" id="gform_source_page_number_17" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="gform_field_values" value="">
</div>
<p style="display: none !important;" class="akismet-fields-container" data-prefix="ak_"><label>Δ<textarea name="ak_hp_textarea" cols="45" rows="8" maxlength="100"></textarea></label><input type="hidden" id="ak_js_2" name="ak_js"
value="1707793116310">
<script>
document.getElementById("ak_js_2").setAttribute("value", (new Date()).getTime());
</script>
</p>
</form>Text Content
* Latest * Magazine * Current Issue * Archives * Subscribe * Crossword * Video * Podcasts * All Shows * The Reason Roundtable * The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie * The Soho Forum Debates * Just Asking Questions * The Best of Reason Magazine * Why We Can't Have Nice Things * Volokh * Newsletters * Donate * Donate Online * Donate Crypto * Ways To Give To Reason Foundation * Torchbearer Society * Planned Giving * Subscribe * Print/Digital Subscriptions * Gift Subscriptions Search for: LOGIN FORM Username(Required) Password(Required) Remember Me Login Create new account Forgot password Social Media UTAH WOULD RATHER REPEAL SOCIAL MEDIA AGE CHECK LAW THAN DEFEND IT IN COURT LAWS LIKE UTAH'S WOULD REQUIRE ANYONE USING SOCIAL MEDIA TO PROVE THEIR AGE THROUGH METHODS SUCH AS SUBMITTING BIOMETRIC DATA OR A GOVERNMENT-ISSUED ID. Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 1.29.2024 12:00 PM Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Media Contact & Reprint Requests (Photo by Rami Al-zayat on Unsplash ) Rather than defend a clearly unconstitutional measure passed to "protect" kids from social media, the government of Utah intends to repeal the law. Last year, Utah became the first state to pass a law limiting minors' social media use to those who had parental consent and requiring platforms to provide a way for parents to access their kids' accounts. It kicked off a wave of similar measures in statehouses across the country—laws that would require anyone using social media to prove their age through such methods as submitting biometric data or a government-issued ID. Now that it faces a pair of challenges in federal court, the state has a new stance: "Psych! We didn't actually mean it!" Want more on sex, technology, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture? Subscribe to Sex & Tech from Reason and Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Email(Required) Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Submit Δ "They know it's unconstitutional. They know it's pure grandstanding and culture warrioring," writes Techdirt editor Mike Masnick. "And they don't want to face the music for abusing the rights of the citizens who elected them to support the Constitution, not undermine it." Powered By 00:00/02:26 10 Sec SoftBank Swings to Profit, Refocuses Strategy Around Arm Next Stay UTAH BACKS DOWN Utah's parental consent for social media law (S.B. 152) was scheduled to take effect in March, along with a law (H.B. 311) to create liability for social media companies that "addict" kids. Both laws were challenged in December by the tech industry association NetChoice. Then, earlier this month, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) sued on behalf of four Utah residents—including Hannah Zoulek, a teenager who identifies as queer—to stop S.B. 152. "Growing up already isn't easy, and the government making it harder to talk with people who have similar experiences to mine just makes it even more difficult," Zoulek told FIRE. The FIRE lawsuit is still in its earliest stages, but the NetChoice lawsuit was already moving forward. A hearing on NetChoice's motion for preliminary injunction was set for February 12. Then, on January 19, Utah lawmakers voted to postpone the law's effective date until October 1, 2024. And Utah officials asked the court to cancel the February hearing, given that the effective date had been postponed "and the Legislature is likely to repeal and replace the law during the current legislative session." The state said in a January 19 motion that the law "is likely to be repealed in the next few weeks." TECH COMPANIES IN LIMBO Last week, Judge David Barlow agreed to cancel the hearing about halting enforcement of the law, "given the delayed implementation…and given the possibility that the Act will be altered during Utah's legislative session." A meeting to make an updated schedule is slated for mid-March. For now, that leaves social media companies in limbo. Utah officials said in the January 19 motion that they "anticipate" the law being amended or replaced soon. But that's not a given, and for now the new rules are still scheduled to take effect this fall. Should tech companies prepare for that? For something similar? Nobody knows. The state does "not even dispute the prospect of irreparable harm," noted NetChoice in a reply opposing the amended schedule. "Rather, Defendants argue that the irreparable harm is not 'imminent.'" "NetChoice's members still need certainty about their compliance obligations well before the Act takes effect," the group stated: > The prospect that the Legislature might pass some legislation at some point > that has some effect on this litigation is not enough to derail briefing that > is well underway and set for hearing. This legislation has not even been > introduced. Its terms are not public knowledge. Nor are its constitutional > flaws or its overlap with the Act at issue here (if any). In any event, no one > can make any guarantees about the outcome or timing of the legislative > process. In the meanwhile, NetChoice's members still face an active choice > between incurring unrecoverable compliance costs with an unconstitutional law > or confronting potential enforcement actions when the Act takes effect in > October. MAKING LAWS OR MAKING HEADLINES? If all of this represents Utah recognizing that its social media statute is an unworkable, unconstitutional, privacy-infringing mess…great! But it also highlights a fundamental issue with politics these days: lawmakers who are more interested in passing legislation that makes a statement than passing legislation that actually works. We've seen this recently with tech bills, measures meant to curb abortion access, laws meant to defy "wokeness," and other restrictions on books, performances, and academic subjects that deal with race, sex, or gender themes. Politicians often seem more intent to signal anger or disgust—and capture the anger and disgust of constituents—than to make changes that pass constitutional muster. Sometimes this may just be cluelessness, and other times it may be deliberately designed to test the limits of protected rights. But there are also situations—like this one in Utah, or an Ohio town's speech-restricting statute against aiding or abetting abortion—where authorities simply back down when challenged, suggesting they know this was never going to fly and basically just passed it as a P.R. move. Hating on Big Tech is an especially good way to garner positive attention these days. And saying you're doing something to "protect kids" is a time-worn way to get props. Besides, lawmakers are as susceptible to moral panic about new technology as anyone else, making them vulnerable to pleas to "Do something!" even if they know—or at least should know—that the Constitution frowns on it. Ultimately, this winds up wasting time and a lot of taxpayer money. But as long as that doesn't actually translate to negative consequences for the officials whose support these laws, there's little downside for them to keep trying. AGE VERIFICATION WHACK-A-MOLE Social media age-check measures like Utah's "violate the First Amendment…rob users of anonymity, pose privacy and security risks, and could be used to block some people from being able to use social media at all," as the American Civil Liberties Union puts it. Alas, whatever happens in Utah, it looks like we're going to be playing whack-a-mole with similar laws for a while. Arkansas and Ohio passed social media age verification laws last year—the Social Media Safety Act and the Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, respectively—though courts have preliminarily blocked enforcement of both. Louisiana also passed social media age verification measure last year (the Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act), as did Texas (the Securing Children Online Through Parental Empowerment Act, or SCOPE). The Louisiana measure is supposed to take effect in July, and the Texas law is slated to take effect in September. Similar proposals are now on the table in Florida, Georgia, and New Jersey. And this isn't even counting the laws passed or under consideration to card people visiting porn websites. There's also federal legislation—like the Social Media Child Protection Act and the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act—that would require nationwide age verification by social media platforms. And both at the federal and state level, proposals like these have been gaining bipartisan support. For many Democrats and Republicans alike, free speech is out and childproofing the internet is in this year. TODAY'S IMAGE Richmond, 2018 (ENB/Reason) Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup. Email(Required) Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Submit Δ NEXT: Death in Jordan Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason. Social MediaFree SpeechChildrenTeenagersPrivacyFirst AmendmentLawsuitsUtahTechnologyInternetCivil Liberties Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Media Contact & Reprint Requests Show Comments (18) LATEST SCOTUS IS TROUBLED BY THE CLAIM THAT STATES CAN DISQUALIFY TRUMP FROM THE ELECTION AS AN INSURRECTIONIST Jacob Sullum | 2.12.2024 1:35 PM PROTECT ACT COULD REQUIRE REMOVAL OF ALL EXISTING PORN ONLINE Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 2.12.2024 12:00 PM BIDEN'S BIZARRE 'SHRINKFLATION' NONSENSE Eric Boehm | 2.12.2024 11:15 AM DELINQUENT COUNTRIES Liz Wolfe | 2.12.2024 9:30 AM JOE BIDEN'S NO GOOD, VERY BAD DAY J.D. Tuccille | 2.12.2024 7:00 AM * About * Browse Topics * Events * Staff * Jobs * Donate * Advertise * Subscribe * Contact * Media * Shop * Amazon Reason FacebookReason TwitterReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeReason ItunesReason on FlipboardReason RSS © 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Notifications