Posted on 06/26/2025 3:42:12 PM PDT by CFW
A U.S. District Court judge granted a preliminary injunction Thursday that halts the Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act of 2024.
NetChoice, a trade organization representing apps like Facebook and Instagram, is challenging the law in a case in the U.S. Northern District of Georgia. It would have required submitting proof of age before accessing social media sites.
Judge Amy Totenberg said in the 50-page ruling that the law is constitutionally infirm.
"The State seeks to erect barriers to speech that cannot withstand the rigorous scrutiny that the Constitution requires, and the inapt tailoring of the law – which is rife with exemptions that undermine its purpose – dooms its constitutionality and calls into question its efficacy," Totenberg said in her decision. "The Act curbs the speech rights of Georgia’s youth while imposing an immense, potentially intrusive burden on all Georgians who wish to engage in the most central computerized public fora of the twenty-first century."
Chris Marchese, NetChoice director of litigation, called the decision "a victory for free speech."
(Excerpt) Read more at thecentersquare.com ...
Let parents be parents and decide what websites kids go on. So sick of government trying to raise our kids.
Parents are not being parents. This may not be the right solution...if there is a solution...but the reality is that parents are not being parents. And this is corrupting our children and youth, which then creates corrupted adults. And that does indeed affect all of us.
She’s an Obama Judge. Her eldest sister is the crackpot NPR correspondent Nina Totenberg.
Challenger just blew up that morning, to give y'all a time frame.
Okay. Fine. The First Amendment thanks you.
Now do gun control. Do the Second Amendment.
“Judge Amy Totenberg”
_______________
Paid off.
“This may not be the right solution...if there is a solution...but the reality is that parents are not being parents.”
I’m with you - ALL OF US suffer the results of bad parenting and if the parents won’t take the BASIC STEPS to protect their kids (such as also keeping away the trans-butchers), then the state is right to step-in.
With the content and social engineering going on by AI and Leftist amoral social media sites, age verification for these powerful platforms is as appropriate as verifying their age for school.
Nope. No taking away the fundamental right of free speech because of bad parents.
Every device made has had built in default parental controls for almost 15 years. There would not be any problem at all if the parents just used them... Fine the parents, not the net industry.
Just another leftist DEMOCRAT Jewess Judge RUINING our coubtry!!!!
What Leftist judges refuse to accept is that, except under extraordinary and scrupulously documented circumstances, children are automatically the legally recognized wards of their parents. Hence, the State has no direct right to f*ck with them--much to the disappointment of, say, homosexual sodomites who are favored by those who labor in the anonymous anthill of the State.
Some of these judges should be investigated for conflict of interest, as in, "Show us your cell-phone log, so we can see if Congressmen, bureaucrats, and lobbyists have you on speed-dial--and when they called you."
Agreed. I think that parents in general don't realize what is available on the "mainstream" social media sites.
Social media is all about making money, therefore it affects interstate commerce.
SCOTUS has said that anything that affects interstate commerce can be regulated. Indeed, they have upheld laws banning tobacco companies from advertising.
Therefore I posit that social media can be regulated according to SCOTUS precedent.
Don’t argue with me...argue with SCOTUS, as they opened this Pandora’s box. I’m just pointing out that logically, you can’t have it both ways.
The bill says that if a child cannot prove they are older than 15, they need their parent’s permission to create a social media account. I see no harm in that.
“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for freedom of thought, which they seldom use.”
Søren Kierkegaard
The judge says. Who cares?
I’m sure that’s true. But it’s still too much government intervention which is awful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.