Just in: the TRO order in NetChoice v. Yost (the Ohio Parental Notification lawsuit).
This order should serve as another massive warning to policymakers aiming to enact similar legislation this year. We have standing and we will show up every time.
drive.google.com/file/d/1vMcQdQ…
This order should serve as another massive warning to policymakers aiming to enact similar legislation this year. We have standing and we will show up every time.
drive.google.com/file/d/1vMcQdQ…
BTW NetChoice had to get a TRO before the preliminary injunction hearing because the Ohio law is set to go into effect next week.
@NetChoice I love y'all's explanation here in particular:
@NetChoice I love y'all's explanation here in particular:
Strong start -- the Court acknowledges NetChoice's Constitutional standing and the compliance burdens associated with the Act.
The real highlight though is the Court's acknowledgement of NetChoice's standing to bring claims on behalf of both its members AND Ohioan minors.
The real highlight though is the Court's acknowledgement of NetChoice's standing to bring claims on behalf of both its members AND Ohioan minors.
Regarding irreparable harm, the Court notes that there is no way that NetChoice's members could recoup the costs incurred to comply with the law should it be struck down at a later point.
Regarding vagueness, the Court was not at all impressed with the State's attempt to clarify who the law applies to, calling attention to the loose 11 factor list set out by the Act.
The Court is similarly unimpressed w/the vague exception for "established" media entities.
The Court is similarly unimpressed w/the vague exception for "established" media entities.
Note to policymakers, attempting to only target social media companies you don't like is absolutely screwing you in court EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Without more, this Court already sees a path forward for NetChoice given the Act's blatant constitutional defects.
Without more, this Court already sees a path forward for NetChoice given the Act's blatant constitutional defects.
A bombshell from the Court re: rights of minors to access speech. The Court pithily cites SCOTUS, determining that the law is clear: content-based regulations seeking to target minors are absolutely subject to strict scrutiny.
Congrats kiddos -- you have First Amendment rights!
Congrats kiddos -- you have First Amendment rights!
The Court concludes with this fantastic quote:
"Foreclosing minors under sixteen from accessing all content on websites that the Act purports to cover, absent affirmative parental consent, is a breathtakingly blunt instrument for reducing social media's harm to children." 🔥
"Foreclosing minors under sixteen from accessing all content on websites that the Act purports to cover, absent affirmative parental consent, is a breathtakingly blunt instrument for reducing social media's harm to children." 🔥
With that, it continues to bewilder me as to why states are still pushing these constitutionally defective, hamfisted, anti-information, anti-youth, pro-censorship bills.
Your colleagues are badly LOSING this fight. At some point it's got to be embarrassing...right?
Your colleagues are badly LOSING this fight. At some point it's got to be embarrassing...right?
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
