Meeting Public Comments

Carl Szabo [NetChoice]

We respectfully ask that you oppose HF 526. The bills goal is laudable and one NetChoice supports. But its chosen means are unconstitutional by imposing prior restraints on online speech, erecting barriers to sharing and receiving constitutionallyprotected speech, and by providing only vague notice to online businesses as to what the law prohibits. The Supreme Court struck down a similar law in 1996 after finding that knowingminors are likely to access a websiteand therefore create liability for the websitewouldplace an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech. NetChoice has an active First Amendment lawsuit against California for its nearlyidentical AgeAppropriate Design Code (AB 2273) for these reasons. To avoid unnecessary litigation, this committee should not advance HF 526 while this litigation is pending. HF 526:1. Violates the First Amendment; 2. Litigation is already underway over an identical law in NetChoice v Bonta;3. Comes with many other problems, as outlined in the attached slide deck.We further outline our opposition in the attached testimony.Thank you