@eff to Court: Young People Have #FirstAmendment #Rights
#Utah cannot stifle young people’s First Amendment rights to use social media to speak about #politics , create #art, discuss #religion , or to hear from other users discussing those topics, EFF argued in a brief filed this week.
#socialmedia #privacy
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/eff-court-young-people-have-first-amendment-rights
Electronic Frontier Foundation · EFF to Court: Young People Have First Amendment RightsRequiring internet users to provide their ID or other proof of their age could block people from accessing lawful speech if they don’t have the right form of ID, the brief argues. And requiring users to identify themselves infringes on people’s right to be anonymous online.
![Text from article:
Here’s the most damning part: Judge Edwards points out that Paxton provided no argument at all “to dispute that the investigation was retaliatory.” In other words, a state attorney general couldn’t even be bothered to deny that he was abusing his office to punish journalists. That’s not legal strategy — that’s confession.
Instead of defending the legitimacy of his investigation, Paxton tried to hide behind procedural arguments, pointing to a case about challenging hypothetical future enforcement. But as Edwards makes clear, this isn’t about some potential future harm:
[Begin block quote]
This case is quite different. Appellees in this case are not challenging a general government policy; rather, they are the specific targets of a retaliatory government investigation. Indeed, as noted above, Paxton readily declared that he was targeting Media Matters for investigation in a press release and interviews. Shortly thereafter, he then served the CID on Media Matters as part of the investigation. Thus, there is no hypothetical harm or a threatened future enforcement action because the retaliatory investigation has already begun.
[End block quote]](https://assets.newsie.social/media_attachments/files/114/616/537/109/934/495/original/731e108610b12135.png "Text from article:
Here’s the most damning part: Judge Edwards points out that Paxton provided no argument at all “to dispute that the investigation was retaliatory.” In other words, a state attorney general couldn’t even be bothered to deny that he was abusing his office to punish journalists. That’s not legal strategy — that’s confession.
Instead of defending the legitimacy of his investigation, Paxton tried to hide behind procedural arguments, pointing to a case about challenging hypothetical future enforcement. But as Edwards makes clear, this isn’t about some potential future harm:
[Begin block quote]
This case is quite different. Appellees in this case are not challenging a general government policy; rather, they are the specific targets of a retaliatory government investigation. Indeed, as noted above, Paxton readily declared that he was targeting Media Matters for investigation in a press release and interviews. Shortly thereafter, he then served the CID on Media Matters as part of the investigation. Thus, there is no hypothetical harm or a threatened future enforcement action because the retaliatory investigation has already begun.
[End block quote]")
]