A coalition of free speech advocates and adult content creators has filed a federal lawsuit against Tennessee’s newly enacted age verification law, arguing it infringes on constitutional rights. The law, known as the Protect Tennessee Minors Act, mandates websites with content deemed “harmful to minors” to implement rigorous age verification systems, a requirement the plaintiffs claim violates the First and Fourth Amendments.

The lawsuit, led by the Free Speech Coalition (FSC), a nonprofit advocating for the rights of adult entertainers and other creators, was filed in federal court last week. Among the plaintiffs is Nashville-based content creator MelRose Michaels, who joins FSC in opposing the law set to take effect on January 1, 2025.

The Protect Tennessee Minors Act requires websites hosting content classified as harmful to minors—defined as comprising 33% or more of their material—to verify users’ ages through government-issued IDs or other means, such as facial recognition. Websites must also re-verify users’ identities every 60 minutes and retain anonymized user data for seven years.

The law specifies that “harmful to minors” content includes sexual depictions or activities deemed inappropriate under contemporary community standards. Critics argue that this broad definition opens the door to subjective interpretation and potential overreach, particularly as similar language has been used in other contexts to target LGBTQ+ events, restrict drag performances, and facilitate the removal of library books.

The law carries severe consequences for noncompliance. Unlike similar legislation in other states, Tennessee’s law imposes felony penalties on violators, adding weight to the concerns of website operators.

The plaintiffs allege that the law is a form of censorship, forcing websites to preemptively block or remove content that might be deemed harmful to minors. They argue this constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.

“Engaging in legal speech is not a criminal act,” said Alison Boden, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, in a statement. “This law, and others like it, have effectively become state censorship, creating a massive chilling effect for those who deal in sex or sexuality, and creating significant privacy risk for Tennesseans who want to access sexual health information, adult content, or any other controversial speech.”

The lawsuit also contends that the law violates the Fourth Amendment by being overly vague, making it difficult for website operators to discern what content falls under its purview. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue the law conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields hosting platforms from liability for user-generated content.

The legal challenge mirrors ongoing disputes across the country over the balance between protecting minors online and upholding constitutional rights. Free Speech Coalition has filed lawsuits against similar laws in several states, including Texas, Louisiana, Indiana, Montana, and Utah. A pivotal case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2025, with a ruling that could set a nationwide precedent for age verification laws.

The plaintiffs in the Tennessee case argue the state’s approach exacerbates existing concerns. The law’s severe penalties create a heightened incentive for websites to over-censor, potentially curbing access to lawful and educational material. The requirement to retain anonymized user data for seven years also raises significant privacy concerns, particularly in an era of increasing cybersecurity threats.

“Now, providers are in the untenable position of abiding by the Act’s terms and enduring the constitutional infringement, or violating them and risking ruinous civil and criminal liability,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs have requested an expedited preliminary injunction to block the law before its January 1 implementation, with the ultimate goal of permanently invalidating it. If the injunction is granted, the law’s enforcement would be delayed while the court deliberates.

As more states pursue similar measures, Tennessee’s law represents a critical flashpoint in the national debate over internet regulation, free speech, and the role of government in protecting minors online. The outcome of this case could influence the trajectory of related legislation across the country, particularly in the context of the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision.

For now, the Protect Tennessee Minors Act stands as one of the most aggressive attempts to regulate online content, drawing sharp criticism from free speech advocates and raising pressing questions about the constitutionality and practicality of such measures.