Lawsuit Hobbles Utah's Plan To Mandate Age Verification Online
"Laws like this don't solve the problems they try to address but only make them worse," says a Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney.

Want to make a social media account? If you live in Utah, you soon may have to hand over your ID. Or maybe not.
The Utah Social Media Regulation Act, which was originally set to go into effect in March 2024, aims to restrict minors' access to social media and the kind of content they can encounter once online.
The law would require all social media users to verify their age through privacy-invading methods such as uploading their driver's license, submitting to a facial scan, or providing the last four digits of their Social Security number. Minors must also obtain parental permission before they can create a social media account. Once online, the law would force social media companies to restrict minors' ability to find new content and other accounts and to limit when they can message others on the platforms.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment nonprofit, launched a lawsuit challenging the law.
FIRE's suit argues that the law violates the First Amendment, pointing out that it forces social media companies to restrict users' access to protected expression. Additionally, FIRE argues the law's age verification requirements amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint on free expression.
"What Utah has done, and what other states are doing, is to try to impose sort of a magic bullet solution to the whole question of youth mental health," says Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel at FIRE. "In its rush to address what really is the latest moral panic, the state brushes aside what is a nuanced problem and chooses censorship as the presumptive solution to how it addresses these issues, ignoring the individual differences and the diverse needs of families in the state."
Following FIRE's suit and other legal challenges, Utah's Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, delayed the law's implementation until October 2024. In a legal filing from January 19, the state noted that the Utah State Legislature "is likely to repeal and replace the law." Less than three weeks later, state legislators introduced two bills that proposed minor changes to the law while keeping the considerable restrictions on accounts held by minors and required age verification in order to create an account.
Utah's law is part of a larger trend—Texas, California, Louisiana, Arkansas, Virginia, Florida, and Montana have all passed similar legislation designed to restrict minors' access to social media or sexually explicit content online. Federal courts have already blocked many of these statutes.
Utah's law is "much like the whole litany of ineffective and unconstitutional measures that courts have consigned to history, including things like protecting young people from movies or comic books, rock music, racy novels, or, most recently, video games," says Corn-Revere. "Laws like this don't solve the problems they try to address but only make them worse. And in the process, it violates everybody's constitutional rights."
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Carded for Posting Online."
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
Government at its best. Taking responsibilities away from parents so they don't have to actually raise their children. May as well just hand them over as infants to the government and never thinknof the kid ever again.
Yup. From "it takes a village to raise a child" to "the village takes your child to raise it". As they see fit.
My son works part time at an after-school program for aboriginal children. Most are being raised by their grandparents because the sperm and egg donors are in prison or substance abuse programs. He sees every day the wasted potential of these kids whose parents simply don't want to parent.
What's funny, in a dark way, is the grandparents likely sucked as parents since it takes a mother to fuck a kid up like that and are essentially being punished by having to raise their grandchildren. Who by the way will also become bad parents because the cycle of shitty parents continues.
I can see why some well meaning morons think these kinds of laws are a good idea. However they are wrong. We need fewer government parenting laws and more laws that force the responsibilities of raising a shit kid back on the parents.
Don't do a good job of raising a useful, functional person? Well, you'll have that kid living with you well into his 30s. Fuck you.
Why it's almost like these arrogant tyrants are trying to PISS people off. If you don't want YOUR children to get on social media take away their device. Don't just resort to poking 'Guns' (Gov-Guns) at everyone under the sun stupid tyrannical F'Heads.
It's important to consider these state laws in conjunction with COPA, the Child Online Protection Act, which was struck down in 2007. I was a sub-plaintiff under Electronic Frontier Foundation and attended one day of the trial in Oct 2006 in Philadelphia. There is a lot of pressure to require minors to provide age verification before accessing social media or even to have smartphones because of the damage that can done. More extreme voices on both the Right and Left have been saying this, particularly with respect to "indoctrination" of minors into radical gender ideology with smartphones and some social media. (That is a real problem and it needs separate discussion.) It is certainly on the Project 2025 agenda regarding "pornography". It is likely we need to review the arguments used in COPA (to discredit the age verification ideas at the time which indeed were inadequate) and figure out a non-intrusive way to age-verify (like using blockchain). There needs to be some leadership on this. I could probably help you with this, contact me at my email or with a comment on my YT channel on a post (it is jboushka, just look at the Playlist). This is really serious, folks.
You and all the other nanny-staters have everything backwards and no one ever seems to call you on it. FIRST there has to be evidence that a crime was committed, THEN you investigate possible suspects, gather evidence of the crime and the possible guilt of suspects, and only then do you charge someone with a crime. Requiring identification in advance of an activity totally turns that process on its head, requiring everyone to prove that they are not about to commit a crime in the future. The very laws that require proof of identity before engaging in an activity that MIGHT violate some law somewhere violate the intent and language of the Constitution. Yet here we are with over four thousand Federal laws alone that violate the Constitution in just that way.
What was the legal drinking age in 1776?
^_-
When Pa said we could.
Bill B is spam. May have used ChatGPT to help generate the comment.
Mentioned before, but any law that requires EVERYONE to do something (show ID) in order to identify a much smaller group covered by a law is Constitutionally suspect. The American people have accepted much worse for a very long time without objection and they deserve exactly what they're getting from the government they elected and gave away their rights to. For example, police may not require you to provide identification, but they punish you anyway if you don't produce it on demand. And somehow everyone seems to accept having to produce a drivers license on demand, so why not an "Online License?" America seems to have become untethered from logic and reality concerning government authority and the problem seems to be accelerating despite an occasional victory in court. The legislature will simply go back to the drawing board over and over and over, making minor cosmetic changes, claiming it is responsive to court objections, and launching the whole process again. When FIRE runs out of funding we're doomed.