Thomas Jefferson once famously stated, “Information is the currency of democracy.” And in our modern day and age, this statement couldn’t ring truer. 24-hour news cycles and constant access to information at our fingertips have created a world where almost anyone at any given time can be reading, writing and sharing information with the rest of the world. Part of this constant stream of information is social media platforms like X, formally Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, allowing people of all ages to share ideas and speech.
This landscape might be changing in Utah however, with the passing of SB194, or The Utah Social Media Regulation Act (SMRA). The bill requires social media companies to verify the age of anyone seeking to maintain or open an account. Users under 18 must get parental consent and must allow parents full access to their child’s account. There will be a default curfew that blocks overnight access to minor accounts from 10:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m., which parents can adjust. It also lets parents block minors’ accounts from search results.
The proposed age verification method with this bill is through government IDs and biometrics like facial recognition. Still, social media companies cannot collect a minor’s data or target them for advertising or addictive features.
Gov. Spencer Cox signed this bill, which is set to go into effect on Oct. one of this year. Originally it was supposed to go into effect March 1, but legal challenges that call the constitutionality of the bill forced the state government to push it back.
One of those challenges comes from NetChoice, an organization which according to its mission statement aims to,” make the Internet safe for free enterprise and free expression through choice, limited government and encouraging competition.” Currently, the organization is suing Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes to halt the SMRA. Castle Country Radio sat down with Chris Marchese, the Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center to discuss the group’s lawsuit and what it could mean if the law passes.
“What lawmakers are trying to do is to say that if you want to use X or Facebook or Instagram or YouTube, you have to scan your license or use facial recognition software just to access the website. In other words, you have to give up personal information about you to access lawful speech online. So that’s a problem.” Explained Marchese of the law.
The challenge that NetChoice is bringing against this bill has its detractors, with Gov. Cox speaking out against this and similar lawsuits during a December news conference saying, “We will vigorously defend these laws, we are prepared for it.”
Cox has been one of the biggest advocates for this bill, also advocating for similar bills to pass in other states,” We have lots of states that are interested and I know we’re all having conversations with other governors, other legislators, and other states. I suspect that you will see lots of bills like these moving forward.”
Other states have tried to pass similar laws around social media, with NetChoice challenging a majority of them and winning lawsuits in states like California, Arkansas, Ohio and Mississippi, which Marchese explained helps the organization’s other lawsuits,” The courts are basically saying, ‘hey, what we said 20 years ago, we still mean today. The government cannot control how you engage with content online.’ And the states seem to have some type of amnesia where they don’t remember that, even though we remind them.” Marchese continued,” But the fact is, court after court after court has sided with us and has stopped these unconstitutional laws from taking effect. And so it’s unfortunate that Utah is the latest example of a state that we had to sue because so much of what is in the law was already ruled unconstitutional in other states. So not only does this law put Utah at great risk of data security problems and privacy risk and violate the Constitution and Utah’s First Amendment rights, but it’s also unnecessary in the sense that courts have already said time and again, that you can’t do this.
Marchese also discussed the security risk angle that NetChoice is trying to address in the lawsuit,” the Los Angeles Times last week reported that 2.7 billion records were stolen on Americans, including their Social Security numbers, their date of birth, their address, their phone number, their alternative name. It’s really scary because, with that information, they can impersonate you online … So the fact of the matter is, as life currently exists, we’re already at severe risk of having data security breaches. And then to make matters worse, lawmakers are coming in and saying, we want you to give up your personal information, even your facial recognition, just to access lawful content. That is putting everybody at far more increased odds of getting hacked.
Another angle considered by NetChoice in this lawsuit is the effect it may have on parental rights. Marchese explained,” If this law is allowed to stand, it would green-light the state coming in to make even more decisions in overruling parents. We see this in California, where the state is very comfortable with overruling parental choices about what is best for their kids. And so right now, it starts with controlling how minors access social media, but very soon it’ll extend to any time lawmakers disagree with the decisions that parents are making.”
SMRA broadly defines what a social media company is, stating that it “means a person or entity that provides a social media platform that has at least 5,000,000 account holders worldwide.” The act is also vague about the implementation expectations placed on the social media companies but estimates it will roughly cost 30 cents per person for ID verification. The verbiage in the law states that there will be minimal if any, fiscal impact on the state or Utah residents. If a company is found in violation of these rules, it faces fines of $2,500 per minor found to be harmed.
Another major crux of this lawsuit is regarding the constitutionality of the bill. “ So the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Scalia, was very clear that the government lacks what he called a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed. In practical terms, it means that parents, not the government, get to decide what is best for their kids.” Marchese continued,” This law not only violates parental rights, but it also violates the First Amendment rights of the parents and the First Amendment rights of the users, and the First Amendment rights of the website. So to walk through that a little bit, you know, first and foremost, adults and minors would have to give up a ton of sensitive information about them just to access lawful speech online. So that’s a burden, right?”
Rounding out our conversation regarding the lawsuit, Marchese left everyone with this,” If we are unsuccessful in getting this law enjoined, nothing is going to stop lawmakers from going back to the drawing board and trying to pass another unconstitutional law unless citizens step up and engage with their lawmakers and say, we know what is best for our kids. Stay in your lane and we will handle our families. We know what we’re doing because unfortunately, the legislative itch to regulate and to control how people exercise their First Amendment rights is just so high right now that we can’t rely on just the drawing board.”
Oral arguments for this case were heard on Tuesday, Aug. 14. Both sides now await the ruling from the U.S. District Court of Utah. Follow Castle Country Radio Stations for more news on this case as it becomes available.