Disclosing One's HIV+ Status Isn't Criminal Harassment of Ex

A recent ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated Ohio’s controversial Social Media Parental Notification Act, a law requiring parental consent for minors under 16 to access social media and gaming applications. This decision marks a significant legal victory for the state, despite opposition from major technology firms and advocacy groups. The three-judge panel ruled in a split decision—2-1—that the law does not violate constitutional protections related to free speech, sending the case back to a lower court to lift the existing block on its enforcement.

The law, which became part of Ohio’s $86.1 billion state budget bill in July 2023, was signed into effect by Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican. At the time, the administration framed the legislation as a necessary step to safeguard children’s mental health, citing concerns over the potential harms of unsupervised internet usage. Then-Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted, now serving as a U.S. Senator, emphasized that social media platforms are designed to be addictive and detrimental to young users. Under the new law, social media and gaming companies are required to obtain explicit parental approval before allowing minors under 16 to create accounts. Additionally, they must disclose detailed privacy policies to inform parents about how user data might be handled and what content could be monitored or restricted on a minor’s profile.

NetChoice, a trade organization representing major tech giants such as TikTok, Snapchat, and Meta, challenged the law shortly after its enactment. They argued that the regulation was overly broad, lacked clarity, and imposed an unconstitutional restriction on free expression. Their legal challenge gained traction in previous cases involving similar laws in other states, including California and Arkansas. However, the Sixth Circuit panel rejected these arguments, asserting that the law’s requirements constituted a minimal burden aimed specifically at addressing the risks associated with children’s online activity.

In the lead opinion authored by Judge Eric Clay, the court acknowledged that while the law imposes a parental consent requirement, it does so in a manner that directly addresses the specific issues raised by the state. Judge Alice Batchelder echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that a statute need not be narrowly tailored to avoid being deemed vague simply because it allows for a wide range of interpretations. The dissenting judge did not publicly elaborate on their reasoning, though the majority’s stance indicates a strong belief in the law’s constitutionality.

The reinstatement of the law has sparked renewed debate among lawmakers, advocates, and industry representatives. While supporters argue that it provides essential safeguards for children navigating the complexities of digital spaces, critics warn that such regulations could stifle innovation and limit access to important communication tools. As the case moves forward, the focus will likely shift to the lower courts, where the implementation of the law will be further scrutinized. Meanwhile, both sides continue to prepare for potential appeals, setting the stage for ongoing legal battles that could shape the future of youth internet regulation in the United States.