ACLU Urges Congress to Vote Against Online Censorship Proposed in the KIDS Act
The KIDS Act, which contains provisions previously found in the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), could silence online speech and jeopardize user privacy
WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter today urging the House of Representatives to vote against the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act) which threatens the freedom of speech online. The legislation, which is set for a House floor vote on Monday evening, would incentivize platforms to remove online content that the government may deem “inappropriate” for minors.
The KIDS Act includes a version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which the ACLU has repeatedly opposed because it would undermine the First Amendment rights and privacy of all online users. It would incentivize platforms to verify the ages of their users, requiring the collection of significant amounts of personal information. Adults who are unable to verify their ages might not be able to access those platforms at all.
“Censorship and invasive age verification measures will not keep children safe,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel with the ACLU. “The KIDS Act would threaten free speech for people of all ages and it would put our data at risk. Congress should vote no on this well-meaning but misguided bill.”
The bill requires apps and websites to take unspecified action to prevent enumerated harms to kids, and in doing so, could lead to the removal of any information even tangentially related to those harms. This could include information that is actually helpful to minors, including information about addiction recovery, mental health resources, and gender affirming care. The proposed expansion of age verification tools would also increase the susceptibility of users’ personal information to data breaches.
The letter can be viewed here.
Related Issues
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseAug 2026
Free Speech
Shortly After Filing, Government Upholds Catsonacouch Creator’s Right To Attend Vance Event Today. Explore Press Release.Shortly After Filing, Government Upholds CatsOnACouch Creator’s Right to Attend Vance Event Today
BREWER, Maine — In a victory for free speech, Amanda McGonigle, creator of the social media accounts @CatsOnACouch, was allowed to attend Vice President Vance’s official speaking engagement in Brewer, Maine today. McGonigle entered without interference after the ACLU and ACLU of Maine filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to allow her to attend future official vice-presidential events. The government agreed she could attend the event today in Maine, just like any other member of the public who registered. Given this agreement, the court denied the motion, and McGonigle successfully attended today’s event. “I was just allowed entrance into Vice President Vance’s event after I sued the government for preventing me from entering the last public event he did in Maine," said Amanda McGonigle. “The government can’t exclude me from official vice-presidential events otherwise open to the public just because I mock people in positions of power on the internet. I have as much right to attend these events as people who haven't called out the vice president for having the charisma of a soggy unsalted rice cake online.” The filing comes after McGonigle registered to attend a vice-presidential event in Maine in May and complied with all advance guest guidance provided by the Executive Office of the President. While in line for the event, armed Secret Service agents and other government officials identified her in the line and told her she wasn’t allowed in because “we know where you stand.” She was also denied guest details to attend an event that was open for registration by the public in Des Moines, Iowa. “The First Amendment protects Amanda’s right to attend public vice-presidential events just like anyone else, no matter how many cat jokes she makes at the vice president’s expense,” said Anahita Sotoohi, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine. “It’s unfortunate that Amanda had to file a lawsuit to vindicate this right, but we are glad to see the federal government finally acknowledge and respect her right to attend the Brewer event. Amanda should also be able to attend similar events in the future. No matter who is in power, the Constitution protects every person’s right to publicly joke, mock, insult, and dissent.” McGonigle filed suit earlier this summer to challenge the government’s retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination against her. McGonigle claimed that she was excluded from the May event in Bangor, Maine, and another event in Des Moines, because of commentary she posts on her social media accounts, which are dedicated to criticizing the Vice President. She launched her @CatsOnACouch accounts after Vice President Vance’s infamous “childless cat lady” comment in 2024, and she says the purpose of the account is “to have more followers than JD Vance by the time he leaves office and to troll him mercilessly every single day.” “The government cannot prohibit people from attending vice-presidential events on the basis of their protected speech,” said Laura Moraff, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “We’re glad the federal government recognized that Amanda has the right to attend today's Brewer event just like everyone else who registered, and we hope the government continues to stand down and not interfere with our client’s right to criticize and joke.” The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Maine filed the suit on behalf of McGonigle in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in early July. The complaint alleges that McGonigle’s First Amendment rights were violated when she was excluded from vice presidential events because of her speech and political views.Court Case: McGonigle v. CurranAffiliate: Maine -
Press ReleaseAug 2026
Free Speech
Catsonacouch Creator Asks Court To Allow Her To Attend Upcoming Vance Events. Explore Press Release.CatsOnACouch Creator Asks Court to Allow Her to Attend Upcoming Vance Events
PORTLAND, Maine — Amanda McGonigle, creator of the social media accounts @CatsOnACouch, asked the court today to step in to allow her to attend future official vice-presidential events, including Vice President Vance’s upcoming speaking engagement in Brewer, Maine on Monday, for which McGonigle registered. In May of this year, McGonigle registered to attend an official vice-presidential event in Bangor, Maine but was prevented from entering the event. While in line for that event, armed Secret Service agents and other government officials called her out by name and told her she wasn’t allowed in because “we know where you stand.” McGonigle is asking a court today to ensure that she is able to attend future events, like the upcoming event in Brewer, without interference, so that she can listen to the Vice President’s remarks, express her views as an audience member, and report on the event for her millions of social media followers. “Last time I went to Maine to hear what the Vice President had to say, I was singled out by armed guards and prohibited from attending,” said Amanda McGonigle. “All I want is to attend these events in peace, just like all the other people in line who haven’t compared the Vice President to a sentient jar of mayonnaise online.” McGonigle filed suit earlier this summer to challenge the government’s retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination against her. McGonigle claimed that she was excluded from the Bangor event, and another event in Des Moines, because of commentary she posts on her social media accounts, which are dedicated to criticizing the Vice President. She launched her @CatsOnACouch accounts after Vice President Vance’s infamous “childless cat lady” comment in 2024, and she says the purpose of the account is “to have more followers than JD Vance by the time he leaves office and to troll him mercilessly every single day.” “No matter who is in power, the Constitution protects our right to publicly joke, mock, insult, and dissent,” said Anahita Sotoohi staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine. “The government is on notice that our client knows her First Amendment rights and will fight in court to enforce them. Using humor and satire to criticize elected officials is a long-standing tradition and the First Amendment secures Amanda’s right to continue in that tradition. It's a testament to the power of speech and the power of laughter that Vance is attempting to silence someone over a cat-themed social media account.” The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Maine filed the suit on behalf of McGonigle in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in early July. The complaint alleges that McGonigle’s First Amendment rights were violated when she was excluded from vice presidential events because of her speech and political views. “The First Amendment protects our client’s criticism of the federal government as well as her satirical cat content,” said Laura Moraff, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “Ms. McGonigle has every right to register for and attend official vice-presidential events, just like any other member of the public.” You can read today’s filing here, Amanda’s declaration here, and more about the case here.Court Case: McGonigle v. CurranAffiliate: Maine -
Press ReleaseAug 2026
Free Speech
Tribunal Federal De Apelaciones Invalida Unánimemente La Ley De Censura De Puerto Rico Aprobada Durante La Pandemia De Covid-19. Explore Press Release.Tribunal Federal de Apelaciones invalida unánimemente la ley de censura de Puerto Rico aprobada durante la pandemia de COVID-19
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — En una decisión unánime, el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito de Estados Unidos anuló la ley de Puerto Rico de 2020 contra las llamadas "noticias falsas", al considerarla una regulación inconstitucional basada en el contenido que restringe la libertad de expresión protegida. Dos periodistas impugnaron la ley, argumentando que amenazaba con coartar cualquier reportaje que pudiera perjudicar la imagen del gobierno durante una emergencia. "Como periodista independiente en Puerto Rico, mi trabajo es buscar la verdad y exigir responsabilidades a quienes ostentan el poder, especialmente cuando surge una crisis y el público necesita información transparente y confiable", afirmó la periodista Sandra Rodríguez. “La ley de ‘noticias falsas’ de Puerto Rico era una amenaza constante. La decisión de hoy del Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito es una victoria no solo para mí o la prensa, sino para todos los ciudadanos en Puerto Rico. Este fallo garantiza que podemos seguir haciendo nuestro trabajo —investigando, cuestionando e informando— sin temor a ser criminalizados por buscar la verdad”. “Este caso va más allá del ejercicio del periodismo. Esto atenta contra el significado mismo de vivir en una sociedad democrática donde las personas tienen derecho a expresarse libremente sin temor a ser silenciadas por el Estado”, declaró, por su parte, el periodista Rafelli González Cotto. “Agradezco al tribunal por defender la Primera Enmienda no solo para los periodistas, sino para todos los ciudadanos de Puerto Rico”. La ley de Puerto Rico de 2020 tipificaba como delito dar a sabiendas una “falsa alarma” sobre catástrofes inminentes o transmitir a sabiendas información falsa sobre cualquier tema cuando hacerlo resultara en un riesgo inminente para la seguridad, la salud o la propiedad. Quienes infringieran la ley se enfrentaban a penas de hasta tres años de cárcel y una multa de hasta $5,000 dólares. "La función de vigilancia de la prensa nunca es más importante ni está más en peligro que durante una emergencia", declaró Brian Hauss, subdirector del Proyecto de Libertad de Expresión, Privacidad y Tecnología de la ACLU. "Agradecemos que el tribunal haya declarado inconstitucional esta ley de 'noticias falsas', que amenazaba con silenciar al periodismo independiente precisamente cuando la ciudadanía más lo necesita". La demanda, presentada originalmente durante la crisis de salud por el COVID-19, fue interpuesta por la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles (ACLU) y la ACLU de Puerto Rico en nombre de dos periodistas, Sandra Rodríguez Cotto y Rafelli González Cotto, quienes temían que la ley se utilizara para castigarlos por su cobertura de emergencias públicas, especialmente por reportajes que perjudicaran la imagen del gobierno. "Celebramos esta victoria que protege dos de nuestros derechos más fundamentales: la libertad de prensa y la libertad de expresión", afirmó Fermín Arraiza Navas, director legal de la ACLU de Puerto Rico. "Esta ley nefasta, firmada inicialmente por el exgobernador Ricardo Rosselló y enmendada por una legislatura en decadencia con la aprobación de la gobernadora Wanda Vázquez en La Fortaleza, solo tenía como norte criminalizar la disidencia y perseguir a la prensa en tiempos de emergencia por simplemente discrepar del discurso oficialista. No lo permitiremos". El 31 de marzo de 2023, el Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito de Puerto Rico dictó una orden judicial permanente contra la ley, al considerar que su alcance excesivamente amplio conllevaba el riesgo de enjuiciamientos politizados y de coartar la libertad de expresión protegida en asuntos de interés público. Este martes, 4 de agosto, el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito de los Estados Unidos confirmó la decisión, dictaminando que la ley viola la Primera Enmienda porque impone una restricción basada en el contenido a la libertad de expresión protegida sin justificación suficiente. El tribunal señaló que la ley carece de las limitaciones esenciales incluidas en otras leyes sobre falsas alarmas, y que podría utilizarse para procesar a quienes se oponen a la postura del gobierno en debates sobre temas controvertidos como la eficacia de las mascarillas durante la pandemia de COVID-19, así como en relación con chistes, sátira o ficción. Como escribió el tribunal, la ley de Puerto Rico “representa una restricción inadmisible de la libertad de expresión, especialmente en tiempos de emergencia, cuando es imperativo que el público esté bien informado y que el gobierno rinda cuentas”. “Con esta ley, el Gobierno de Puerto Rico puso en peligro el derecho a la libertad de expresión y la libertad de prensa, protecciones que son cada vez más indispensables”, declaró Annette Martínez Orabona, directora ejecutiva de la ACLU de Puerto Rico. “Esto también fue un intento de desalentar la fiscalización justa y necesaria del gobierno, precisamente durante periodos de emergencia como el que Puerto Rico vive en la actualidad, con una crisis en el servicio de agua potable. Se trata de derechos que están siendo atacados desde múltiples frentes y que hoy logramos proteger”. Puedes leer la opinión aquí. También puedes leer más sobre la ley aquí.Court Case: Rodríguez-Cotto v. Pierluisi-UrrutiaAffiliate: Puerto Rico