Want to Use Social Media? Utah Wants You to Hand Over Your ID.
A new lawsuit is challenging a Utah law that requires age verification to use social media and forces minors to get their parents permission first.

Last week, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment nonprofit, launched a lawsuit against the state of Utah, challenging a new state law requiring invasive age verification for social media users.
The law, The Utah Social Media Regulation Act, was passed last March and aims to restrict minors' access to social media and the kind of content they can encounter once online. The law will require all social media users to verify their age through privacy-invading methods such as a facial scan, uploading their driver's license, or giving the last four digits of their social security number. Additionally, minors will be required to obtain parental permission before they can create a social media account. Once online, the law forces social media companies to severely restrict minors' ability to find new content and accounts, and limit when they can message others on the platforms.
"The idea that some types of social media use by some minors under certain conditions can adversely affect some segment of this cohort is no basis for imposing state restrictions on all social media use by all minors—just as the State does not (and cannot) keep all books under lock and key because some are inappropriate for some children," FIRE's suit reads. "Although the Act purports to aid parental authority, it imposes 'what the State thinks parents ought to want'…while ignoring the ways parents can already regulate their children's access to and use of social media. "
FIRE's lawsuit argues that the law violates the First Amendment, pointing out that it forces social media companies to restrict users' access to protected expression. The complaint claims that the law's age verification requirements amount to a prior restraint on expression that limits "all Utahns' ability to access important sources of information and social interaction."
Further, the suit argues that the law's provisions are overbroad and lead to the unnecessary suppression of protected speech. "Without even pretending to regulate speech only in the narrowly defined categories of unprotected speech, the deprives all minors of access to a powerful medium of communication without regard to their informational needs or level of maturity, merely because (the State believes) access to some information by some minors may be detrimental," the complaint reads. "Also, restricting adults' access to a communications medium as a means of protecting minors is inherently overbroad."
In all, the suit argues that the law obviously violates the First Amendment in its quest to restrict minors' access to social media sites—and in doing so, requires all Utahns who want to use social media to give massive social media companies access to sensitive identifying information.
"This law will require me and my mom to give sensitive personal information to major tech companies simply to access platforms that have been an integral part of my development, giving me a sense of community and really just helping me figure out who I am as a person," said Hannah Zoulek, a Utah high school student and plaintiff in the case. "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."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
However this plays out, feel bad for the middle school kid doing web research for a science/nature report on beavers.
And Great Tits and Wild Asses are right out.
Boobies?
only on a calculator.
Kids don’t even have the “land o lakes” girl anymore.
They've still got Schumer (choose your poison there).
She's been replaced by the Topo Chico girl.
There's the St. Pauli Girl.
And the Starbucks mermaid has been stylized into titlessness.
And actual 304s... as the kids say.
Bush Tits have been in the yard the last couple of weeks. They migrate through here this time of year.
Definitely safe search on material, even if it's only a chickadee.
Why does flag just flag a post and mute has a confirmation, when flag can't be undone and mute can? Sorry to whoever I flagged.
Yeah, that pisses me off. It's too easy to tap that accidentally. It needs a "are you sure" pop up.
Forget that, my kid wanted to learn violin and I know Asians are good at that so I searched Asian lessons
Retard fight!
In the one corner, Reason Magazine!: LOL! Canada - Quebec police are warning residents not to post home security video of porch pirates to the Internet, saying it could violate the thieves' right to privacy.
And in the other corner, also Reason Magazine!: LOL! Utah - The law, The Utah Social Media Regulation Act, was passed last March and aims to restrict minors' access to social media and the kind of content they can encounter once online. The law will require all social media users to verify their age through privacy-invading methods such as a facial scan, uploading their driver's license, or giving the last four digits of their social security number.
[Mills Lane Voice] Let's get it on! [/Mills Lane Voice]
Well if I was Fire, I would start with getting them to throw out the rating system for movies and video games. Then I'd have them take a look at getting rid of the 21 age laws for alcohol and cigarettes. I won't even go into internet porn.
Lots of presidents here.
You're not wrong. We set limits on businesses to not do business with people under a certain age range. Doing so on social media companies seems a no brainer.
But what all these laws do is allow the state to parent our children because people don't want to parent their own children. The question we must ask is parenting our children something we want our government to do? Seems to me if we are signing over parental responsibilities to the government we can't really complain when government schools provide birth control, abortion advise, fake pronouns without telling parents and assisting children seeking sec reasignment surgery.
Maybe we need to take all those responsibilities back.
You're assuming they're actually a Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and not an ACLU-style dollars-for-virtue-signals money laundering machine. They have to know that COPPA and numerous state Sexually-Oriented Business laws are going to abjectly pound this case (unless, of course, they're hoping they can shovel some MAP, tranny suicide bullshit, land themselves in front of Justices "What is a woman?" and "Bostock v. Clayton", and further re-write 50 yrs. of English language and Civil Rights law).
Relatedly, why 21 for alcohol and cigarettes, not mentioned in the Constitution but no mention of 21 for handguns *and ammo* even though specified clearly specified in The Constitution? Pretty sure FIRE wouldn't touch handguns *and ammunition* for 19 yr. olds because they're a bag of dicks but, presumably, it was just an oversight on your part?
wherein defendant did negligently "make it harder" for plaintiff "to talk with people" such as the plaintiff and did negligently make "growing up" ... "even more difficult" for plaintiff ...
Who elected politicians to be my children’s parents? Seriously. Who the F do these tyrants think they are. If a parent doesn’t want their kids to be subject to certain online material there is plenty of options to block or take away social media access.
If there needs to be State law to address online crimes like underage public porn so be it. Parents can report illegal material and postings and have the poster shut-down or arrested. This isn’t addressing anything. It's just progressing a nanny state.
identity thieves rejoice
We all know social media is the beacon of good security – haha. Why are they forcing so many people to have their identity stolen?
So the security problem is simple to solve.
Ban all use of social media.
(let the cops figure out on their own who was where when)
This is blatantly unconstitutional. Anyone who supports it has less respect for liberty or the Bill of rights than the worst redcoat and deserves the same treatment. SS cards used to say not to be used for identification purposes on the cards. That Utah would even ponder this is disgusting.
SS cards used to say not to be used for identification purposes on the cards.
The cards are not to be used specifically for identification purposes because they don't depict the bearer, they only confirm (assuming no forgery) that the SSA issued the number. For things like a passport this is made clear as you need multiple forms of photo ID and the photo IDs stipulate your SSN. An old-school form of two-factor authentication.
Not saying whether the number should be used by Utah or not, just, whether you want to tear the lamp post down or not, the only rational way to do so is with a clear understanding of why it was put up in the first place.
I've no doubt a lot of Boomers are cheering this legislation so the government will do "something" about all these damned kids who don't respect their elders like they are supposed to. I can just see a batch of them in a... um... in an all uncaffinated coffee shop saying that this will make these kids go outside and play instead of using their facepages and instatweeters like in the good old days when we cold beat a nigger for standing on a white woman's shadow.
The IRS website already does this and not just for minors. Gross
Hey Emma,
Do you know that my home state requires me to turn over my personal information *and* attain a physical no-shit license in order to exercise an actual, no-shit, constitutionally-protected right?
That they make me present said license, that has it's own photo attached, every time I do anything with the right in public or private places of business even though 21 is a couple decades behind me?
Go fuck yourself with your ACLU-style "FIRE is for Individual Rights!" bullshit.
In all, the suit argues that the law obviously violates the First Amendment
How? It’s dumb maybe, but I don’t see anything unlawful or unconstitutional about it.
Rewind 100 years. Imagine if you wander down to the local Montgomery Ward, or open up their mail-order catalog so you can get yourself a typewriter. Upon attempting to purchase it, the salesperson informs you that you’ll need to verify your age and, if under 18, have your parents permission to buy the typewriter.
Is that also a 1A violation? Of course not. Nobody owes you a typewriter so you can express your words upon it for dissemination to other readers. A typewriter doesn’t automatically come as part of some 1st Amendment Package you receive upon citizenship. Your right to speech (or press) does not also confer upon you a right to typewriters.
Meaning its fair game for state legislation.
So how is a social media platform any different? It’s simply one of many vehicles one can use TO exercise a right (and not even a particularly effective one). But a right to something doesn’t imply the means by which to exercise it. That’s why your Second Amendment allows you to have a gun, but doesn’t entitle you to have one provided to you.
People make this mistake constantly – this blurring of the line between Rights and Entitlements. The right to free speech can’t be unlawfully deprived by the State, but that doesn’t mean the State owes you anything to help you get your voice heard. Free speech is a right. A typewriter, or a social media platform to exercise that right is not. To suggest otherwise is to claim an entitlement to something, on the basis of a right merely related to it.
Now, one might validly argue that it’s unconstitutional for the State to unreasonably frustrate the ability to obtain the means to exercise ones rights – but, insofar as we’re concerned on this subject, what they’re suggesting is not terribly restrictive and folks still have plenty of other means to exercise 1A.
So, seems like much ado about nothing. Maybe some valid quibbles about how they go about verifying age and parental consent – but not some full blown existential threat to the Constitution here. Dumb, arguably – but hardly some threat to freedom as idiot Emma breathlessly paints it.
A better argument would be that the State is unreasonably burdening the social media companies. Going back to our typewriter - the individual consumer won't have a leg to stand on, but the typewriter producer could very easily make the argument, "How dare you interfere with me selling my product to a perfectly legitimate market!" (But then again, we do this with minors all the time. Tobacco, lottery tickets, firearms, tattoos, etc.)
100 years ago you didn't have to have an ID, even for buying booze or cigarettes. I don't know if you needed a drivers license in the 1920s... there weren't a lot of cars on the roads then. I suspect identity papers were something those damned Nazis wanted you to have and no red blooded American needed no papers to travel in a free country.
You get the point though.
If you don't like typewriters, go ahead and swap it to a bullhorn, a stage and microphone, personal computers, fax machines, email carriers, smartphones. Whatever.
It's all the same. Free speech is a right. That doesn't mean it automatically comes with the means to make your voice heard.
But if the government (or businesses acting as their proxies) intentionally makes it difficult or impossible for you to obtain the means to make your voice heard, then they are violating your 1st Amendment protection.
Not necessarily. When a fundamental right isn't at issue (in this case, typewriter purchasing and social media platform access - neither of which are a fundamental right), the State has wider latitude to regulate if they can assert a legitimate interest in doing so, and even more so when we clearly still have means of access (in this case, parental permission) and/or open alternatives to the specific regulated thing (social media platform access is not, by a long shot, your only access to exercise free speech).
Your problem is that you're doing expressly what I told you is a mistake - equating the right with an entitlement. Your rights do not come with the means by which to exercise them. And they certainly don't come with those means on your terms. That's an entitlement that makes exercising your rights easier. Lacking them, however, doesn't deprive you of said rights.
If every firearm in America costs >$1000 by virtue of their market value, and you only have $20 - you're not being deprived of your 2A rights simply because you can't obtain a gun. To suggest otherwise implies that guns should be provided at a loss to their producer; effectively that they're owed to people "by right." Which is clearly absurd.
If you're off to vote in the next election and your car breaks down on a lonely highway a few minutes after your cell phone battery dies so you can't even call for emergency services, you haven't been deprived of your right to vote. To suggest otherwise would imply that your right to vote also comes with a right to reliable transportation and cell phones that never die. Which is clearly absurd.
Don't confuse rights with the -things- we take for granted that afford us convenient means by which to exercise them. That's entitlement mentality. Not a rights mentality.
No matter what you swap it to 100 years ago there were no papers to present to authorities. Also demanding people present an ID to vote is racist so I think this is racist too.
Why stop there? Let's go back to 100+ years ago - where you had to show up onsite to confirm your eligibility (aka present an ID), cast a ballot that was usually provided right then and there, and which you had to announce publicly your vote upon casting it.
Ooh, let's go back to requiring proof of property ownership! Also, women aren't allowed. (They suck at it anyway.)
I like where you're headed with this!
(Also, what does race have to do with anything?)
The local Montgomery Ward is not the government, so it isn't unconstitutional for them to ask you for an ID to buy a typewriter. If the government passed a law requiring Montgomery Ward to check IDs for typewriter buyers, it would violate the Constitution.
Or if government officials threatened and badgered Montgomery Ward to check IDs.
Not necessarily.
The local convenience store asks me for ID to buy a sixer or a lottery ticket. Because the government has passed laws prohibiting minors from doing that, which will hold the convenience store responsible if they sell to a minor. These have been up for Constitutional determination long ago, and they're fine.
So Nikki was right?
Mormonism is a cancer that needs to be cured.
It's not about Mormonism; it's about power. Learn the difference.
+10000000 Well said. It's like an as-if no other sector/religion had just as much if not more power monsters in them. Course the lefts very substance resides in [WE] identity-mob rules. I'm not sure they have any deeper mentality than barbaric chicken pecking.
This sounds like Yuppies not wanting to be responsible parents. Or is it Millenials now... which damned generation is having kids now?
No one is having kids now.