www.thecentersquare.com – By Steve Wilson | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-02 06:19:00
(The Center Square) – After a federal court struck down Arkansas’ age verification law for social media platforms on Monday, Louisiana’s statute is likely in jeopardy after the same internet free speech group filed a similar complaint.
NetChoice, an association founded in 2001 with members that include YouTube, Google, Reddit and others, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on March 18. The parties are supposed to have a status conference on Wednesday.
A similar law was partially blocked by a federal court in California in January.
Like Louisiana’s law, the Natural State’s legislation required age verification and parental permission to have a social media account, but it was more sweeping as it was applied to all users under age 18.
“Act 689, if implemented, would violate the First Amendment rights of Arkansans because it is a facially content based restriction on speech that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest,” Brooks said in his decision. “It would also violate the due process rights of Plaintiffs’ members because it is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
In his decision, Brooks admits that while Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest and Snapchat require users to be at least age 13, “account holders are asked only to self-report their ages.”
He also said that the Arkansas law “is not narrowly tailored to address the harms that the state has a compelling interest in preventing.”
“The court confirms what we have been arguing from the start: laws restricting access to protected speech violate the First Amendment,” said Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, in a news release. “And while we are grateful that this law has been permanently struck down and free speech online preserved, we remain open to working with Arkansas policymakers to advance legislation that protects minors without violating the Constitution.”
Like in Arkansas, NetChoice is seeking the overturn of Louisiana’s Senate Bill 162 passed in 2023 and in effect since July 1.
According to the legislation, age verification is required for social media sites and bans those younger than 16 from having an account without parental permission.
It also requires social media platforms to make “commercially reasonable efforts” to verify the age of users, which the complaint says is an abrogation of the First Amendment.
SUMMARY: Good Wednesday morning. Severe weather is expected today across northwest Arkansas and the river valley, with thunderstorms starting as early as 7 a.m. These storms may bring damaging winds, large hail, and potential tornadoes. The severe weather threat encompasses all of Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma, hitting a level 5 out of 5 in northeast Arkansas. Conditions will remain windy and humid with gusts up to 40 mph. While the worst impacts are expected in the morning, another round of severe storms is predicted for Thursday, particularly affecting the river valley. Be prepared and monitor weather alerts for safety.
40/29 Meteorologist Majestic Storm says there is a statewide severe weather threat across Arkansas today.
An Arkansas House committee approved a bill Tuesday that supporters said would protect religious freedom, a day after the Senate rejected a bill with a similar stated goal.
House Bill 1615 will be heard by the full House Wednesday after passing the Judiciary Committee on a split voice vote following nearly an hour of public opposition. The bill would “prohibit the government from discriminating against certain individuals and organizations because of their beliefs regarding marriage or what it means to be female or male.”
This would protect Arkansas government employees from adverse employment action if they refuse to do something within the context of their jobs that conflicts with their “sincerely held religious beliefs,” such as providing a marriage license to a same-sex couple, according to the bill.
House Bill 1669, which had similar language regarding the “sincerely held religious beliefs” of parents seeking to foster or adopt children in Arkansas, failed in the Senate Monday after passing a House committee, the full House and the Senate Judiciary Committee in March. The bill’s Republican sponsors, Rep. Mary Bentley of Perryville and Sen. Alan Clark of Lonsdale, said HB 1669 would ensure Arkansas does not join the ranks of states in which parents who do not accept or affirm LGBTQ+ children’s identities are not allowed to foster or adopt.
Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Searcy, said the bill would set a “dangerous precedent” by shielding foster or adoptive parents from adverse government action if their faith-based actions harm children. He reminded the chamber that not all “sincerely held religious beliefs” are Christian.
Sen. Jonathan Dismang (left), R-Searcy, and Sen. Jimmy Hickey (right), R-Texarkana, voted against House Bill 1669 on the Arkansas Senate floor on Monday, March 31, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
Fifteen Republican senators voted for the bill, which needed 18 votes to pass. Dismang and three other Republicans joined the chamber’s six Democrats in voting against the bill. Five more Republicans did not vote and four voted present. The Senate later expunged the vote, and the bill is on the upper chamber’s Wednesday agenda.
The original version of Act 733 of 2023 included language about foster care, adoption agencies and the issuing of marriage licenses similar to both HB 1669 and HB 1615. That legislation was amended to remove such specific language. Critics said it would not only empower anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination but also would contradict a similarly worded ballot measure that voters rejected in 2022.
Rep. Robin Lundstrum, R-Elm Springs, is the primary sponsor of Act 733 and HB 1615. Attorneys from the conservative First Liberty Institute and the Family Council’s Arkansas Justice Institute supported Lundstrum in presenting the bill to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Tuesday’s debate
Attorney J.P. Tribell was the only opponent of Bentley’s bill in the March 12 House committee hearing, but one of eight opponents of HB 1615 Tuesday.
Attorney J.P. Tribell (left) speaks against House Bill 1669, sponsored by Rep. Mary Bentley (right), R-Perryville, before the House Committee Aging, Children and Youth and Legislative Affairs on Wednesday, March 12, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
“[There are] some rural counties where possibly everybody in the courthouse might be opposed to gay marriage, and if somebody wants to get a marriage license and they can find nobody, at what point do we determine that there’s an undue burden on the person seeking a marriage license?” Tribell said. “Do they have to drive two to three hours to get to Little Rock to do that?”
Civics educator Gail Choate said HB 1615 espouses the “opposite logic” of Act 116 of 2025, which all but one of HB 1615’s 13 sponsors supported. Act 116 prohibits public entities from engaging in identity-based “discriminination” or “preferential treatment” in contracting and hiring practices.
“This bill does not evaluate individuals based on their actions, their qualifications or their ability to contribute to society,” Choate said. “It singles them out solely based upon their identity.”
Other opponents of the bill spoke on behalf of themselves or their loved ones in the LGBTQ+ community. Kaymo O’Connell, a transgender high school senior from Little Rock, expressed concern about experiencing employment discrimination upon entering the workforce in the near future.
HB 1615 allows government employees who issue marriage licenses to recuse themselves from doing so. Marie Mainard O’Connell, Kaymo’s mother, said HB 1615 lacks a public notification process for such recusals.
Kaymo O’Connell of Little Rock testifies against House Bill 1615 before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, April 1, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
“That’s where the harm occurs,” she said. “[People] are harmed when they expect to be cared for, and then they are told, ‘I don’t believe that about you, I don’t have to care for you that way.’ That creates a moment of trauma.”
Social workers Kirsten Sowell and Courtney Frierson said HB 1615 would create a conflict between their ethical codes, which include acceptance of LGBTQ+ people, and the fact that the state issues their professional licenses.
“If my licensing board receives a complaint based on someone’s religious disagreement with my inclusive care, who are they supposed to protect: me or the complainant?” Frierson said. “That’s a legal gray zone, and it’s not theoretical, it’s coming.”
No members of the public or of the House Judiciary Committee spoke in favor of HB 1615. Opposition on the committee primarily came from its Democrats, including Rep. Nicole Clowney of Fayetteville, who called it “blatant viewpoint discrimination.”
“We heard a lot of abstract ideas about religious freedom [today],” she said. “We did not hear from one person who is for this bill who is currently being persecuted.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
SUBSCRIBE
Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.
