761 F.Supp.3d 1132
W.D. Tenn.2024Background
- The Protect Tennessee Minors Act (PTMA) requires any website where at least one-third of content is deemed "harmful to minors" to implement burdensome age-verification measures for users, including uploading facial photographs and government-issued IDs.
- Plaintiffs, comprised of non-profits, businesses, and individuals who publish or access sexual health and adult content online, challenged the PTMA on First Amendment grounds, seeking a statewide injunction.
- Plaintiffs argued the law's definition of "harmful to minors" is overly broad and captures protected adult speech, with onerous requirements that chill constitutionally protected expression for adults.
- The State (Attorney General Skrmetti) argued the statute merely restricts minors’ access to unprotected content and is a justified measure to protect children from online pornography.
- The court evaluated whether the PTMA constitutes an unconstitutional, content-based restriction on adult speech and whether less restrictive, effective means could achieve the state's interests.
- The court granted a preliminary injunction, prohibiting enforcement of the PTMA statewide, finding it likely violates the First Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to Sue | Plaintiffs face imminent injury, traceable to State enforcement, and an injunction would redress harm | No standing because criminal/private enforcement by others possible, and no constitutional right at issue | Plaintiffs have standing; PTMA objectively chills protected adult speech |
| First Amendment – Level of Scrutiny | Strict scrutiny applies: PTMA burdens protected adult speech, not limited to obscenity | Only obscenity for minors is restricted, so rational basis applies per Ginsberg | PTMA is content-based and burdens adult speech; strict scrutiny applies |
| Breadth/Overbreadth of Statute | Law is overbroad, sweeping in protected, non-obscene material; not narrowly tailored | Statute mirrors established standards and is not overbroad | PTMA is overbroad, captures protected speech, fails narrow tailoring |
| Least Restrictive Means | Parental controls/filters are more effective and less restrictive | No better alternatives; age-verification is justified | PTMA not least restrictive; less restrictive, effective alternatives exist |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (invalidated CDA as overly broad restriction on First Amendment-protected internet speech)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (age-verification for harmful content online subject to strict scrutiny; less restrictive means like filtering favored)
- Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (content-based restrictions related to minors must be tightly tailored; broad restrictions violate adult rights)
- Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (allowed restriction on obscenity to minors, but distinguished from broader burdens on adults)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (established test for obscenity; only unprotected speech may be banned)
- Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (state cannot prohibit adult access to protected material in the home)
- United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (strict scrutiny applies to content-based speech restrictions on adult material)
- Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380 (state may not limit adult speech to what is suitable for children)