NetChoice v. Colorado
Woodhull Freedom Foundation joined the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Colorado, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in filing an amicus brief in NetChoice v. Colorado. The case challenges Colorado’s 2024 law requiring social media platforms to display government-mandated warnings to minors about the purported harms of social media use. The brief urges the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the district court’s decision blocking the law as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
Although Colorado characterizes the law as a public health measure, the brief explains that it is fundamentally a compelled speech case. Rather than requiring platforms to disclose objective, factual information about a product or service, the law forces them to repeatedly communicate the government’s preferred message about the value and effects of lawful, protected speech. The First Amendment prohibits the government from compelling private speakers to disseminate its views, even when those views are well-intentioned or concern matters of public health.
The brief also places the law in historical context. Throughout American history, lawmakers have attempted to restrict or stigmatize new forms of expression—from dime novels and comic books to television, music, video games, and now social media—by claiming they posed unique dangers to young people. Time and again, courts have recognized that concerns about children’s well-being cannot justify eroding the constitutional rights of speakers and listeners.
For Woodhull, the case reaches far beyond social media. Government efforts to compel speech or discourage access to lawful expression often fall most heavily on speech related to sexuality, LGBTQ+ identities, sexual health, and other topics that have long been subject to censorship. When the government can require warnings that portray protected expression as inherently harmful, it creates a dangerous precedent that threatens free expression across a wide range of constitutionally protected speech.
This case is part of Woodhull’s broader effort to challenge laws that burden online expression through age verification requirements, compelled speech, and other restrictions enacted in the name of protecting minors. Whether the government seeks to force speakers to say more, say less, or say something they do not believe, the constitutional principle remains the same: the First Amendment protects the freedom to decide what to say—and what not to say.