The Fight for Young People’s First Amendment Rights Online: Why Social media Bans Are Unconstitutional
Across the United States, a wave of legislation aimed at restricting young people’s access to social media is colliding with essential constitutional rights. Lawmakers in over a dozen states have attempted to implement laws requiring parental permission or outright banning minors from platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter). However, these efforts have consistently faced legal challenges, with nearly every court review resulting in a ruling deeming them unconstitutional. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has been at the forefront of this legal battle,filing amicus briefs in multiple states,arguing that these laws not only infringe upon the First Amendment rights of young people but also burden the rights of adults and create meaningful privacy and security risks.
Minors’ First Amendment Rights: A Long-Established Principle
The core of the issue lies in the fundamental principle that minors possess the same First Amendment rights as adults. This isn’t a new concept. The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that young people don’t forfeit thier constitutional rights simply by virtue of their age. These rights encompass the freedom to express themselves, engage in political discourse, explore diverse viewpoints, and connect with others – all activities increasingly facilitated by the internet.
The internet hasn’t created these rights; it has dramatically amplified them. For young people, online platforms provide crucial spaces for self-discovery, community building, and civic engagement. Restricting access to these spaces isn’t about protecting children; it’s about silencing their voices and limiting their opportunities.
How These Laws Typically Work – and Why They Fail
Most of the proposed and enacted state laws share two key characteristics:
- Age Verification/Estimation: These laws mandate that social media companies determine the age of all users, frequently enough requiring them to collect personal data.
- Restrictions on Access: They either entirely ban minors from accessing social media platforms or require verifiable parental consent for access.
The EFF’s legal challenges center on the argument that these laws are unconstitutional for several reasons. They violate the First Amendment by restricting speech based on age, impose undue burdens on adults’ rights, and create serious privacy and security vulnerabilities.
EFF’s Legal Battles Across the Country (2025)
In 2025, the EFF actively challenged age-gating laws through amicus briefs filed in numerous states, including:
- California (and a subsequent appeal: second appeal)
- Florida
- Georgia
- Mississippi
- Ohio
- Utah
- Texas
- Tennessee
These briefs consistently argued that the laws infringe upon the First Amendment rights of both young people and adults,and were often joined by organizations like the ACLU,Center for Democracy & Technology,Freedom to Read Foundation,LGBT Technology Institute,TechFreedom,and Woodhull Freedom Foundation,demonstrating broad consensus on the issue.
The Dangers of Age Verification and the Erosion of Privacy
The requirement for age verification presents a multitude of problems. It’s not simply a matter of clicking a birthdate checkbox.These laws often necessitate the collection of sensitive personal information,creating significant risks:
- Discrimination and Exclusion: ID-based systems can exclude individuals who lack government-issued identification,disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.
- Inaccurate Biometric Data: Biometric verification methods (facial recognition, etc.) are frequently enough inaccurate and can be biased, leading to wrongful denials of access.
- Chilling Effect on Anonymous Speech: Requiring identification before speaking online discourages anonymous expression, which is crucial for whistleblowers, activists, and individuals in vulnerable situations. The First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously.
- Data Security Risks: Collecting and storing sensitive personal information makes users vulnerable to data breaches, identity theft, and potential misuse of their data. These laws ironically force social media companies to collect more data, increasing these risks.
A Better Path Forward: Privacy Protections, not Censorship
The EFF argues that rather of resorting to censorship, lawmakers should focus on enacting robust privacy laws to protect young people online. This includes:
- Strong Data Privacy Regulations: Limiting the collection and use of personal data by social media companies.
- Enhanced Parental Controls: Providing parents with tools to manage their children’s online experiences without requiring broad restrictions on access.
- Increased Transparency: Requiring social media companies to be clear about their algorithms and data practices.
- Digital Literacy Education: Equipping young people with the skills to navigate the online world safely and responsibly.
These measures address the legitimate concerns about online harms without infringing upon fundamental constitutional rights.
Key Takeaways
- State laws attempting to ban or restrict minors’ access to social media are consistently being struck down in court as unconstitutional.
- Minors have the same First Amendment rights as adults, including the right to free speech online.
- Age verification requirements pose significant privacy and security risks.
- The focus should be on enacting strong privacy protections and promoting digital literacy, not censorship.
Looking Ahead
The legal battles surrounding these social media laws are far from over. As more states consider similar legislation, the EFF will continue to advocate for the rights of both young people and adults to access the internet, speak freely, and organize online. The future of online freedom depends on upholding the principles of the First Amendment and prioritizing privacy and security over censorship.
This article is part of our Year in Review series. Read other articles about the fight for digital rights in 2025.
