Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a bill that bans children aged under 14 from social media platforms and requires 14- and 15-year-olds to get parental consent, a measure supporters say will protect them from online risks to their mental health.
The measure requires social media platforms to terminate the accounts of people under 14 and those of people under 16 who do not have parental consent. It requires them to use a third-party verification system to screen out those who are underage.
The amended version allows for parents to provide consent for older children to engage on social media platforms. It will become law on Jan. 1, 2025.
[...] "Social media harms children in a variety of ways," DeSantis said in a statement. He said the legislation "gives parents a greater ability to protect their children."
[...] Critics have said the bill violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections for free speech and that parents, not the government, should make decisions about the online presence of their children of all ages.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mendax on Friday March 29, @10:04PM (9 children)
The chances of this law's survival are equal to those of DeSancimonious's presidential campaign once he started it: zero. Even a conservative US Supreme Court is very protective of the First Amendment, including that corrupt asshole Clarence Thomas. Kids have First Amendment rights but so do the adults who use the services. Requiring the use of third-party verification services violates the right to anonymity in First Amendment expression, whether that be speech or association.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Informative) by SpockLogic on Friday March 29, @10:28PM
Yep, it's just another example of the thin skinned bully who governs Florida pandering to the lowest denomination.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Friday March 29, @11:09PM
no one takes the first amendment seriously. or really any part of the constitution. we bombed the first amendment bridge quite a while ago and everyone saluted and clapped. well, it served their personal interests at the time so we can hardly blame them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DrkShadow on Friday March 29, @11:28PM (1 child)
OTOH, PornHub is preparing to pull out (no pun intended, really) of Florida because of their ID-required age-verification.
This seems to be the same as that. PH seems to think this has a good chance of standing.
---
As an aside, all these states have *finally* found their ticket against porn: just require actual ID-based age checks for each user (each time). That gets (legal) porn to leave!! Now they can consider everything else *il*legal and prosecute anyone who presents it. Maybe it'll be the return of AdultCheck (C).
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday March 29, @11:51PM
Oh, what a pity. Florida has quite nice sunny bitches. :grin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Interesting) by deimtee on Friday March 29, @11:32PM (1 child)
Does it though? I could see a lawyer arguing that as stated the law doesn't target individuals at all and that it doesn't limit speech - it simply requires companies to perform certain actions.
Laws requiring companies to do specific things are certainly not new.
The 2nd amendment also makes no mention of age at all, but no-one has a problem with the fact that many laws stop children buying guns.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 4, Informative) by mendax on Saturday March 30, @01:00AM
Yeah, but if that action is to identify yourself which is the only way to prove you are an adult, it's no longer anonymous speech. May I direct you to McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) [wikipedia.org], my favorite First Amendment case, one that discusses the unconstitutionality of laws that ban anonymous speech? Clarence Thomas's concurrence, probably originally written in crayon, is worth reading despite the dubious character of its author.
True, but numerous courts have ruled that kids have unfettered First Amendment rights. The only limitation I am aware of is when what they say occurs on school grounds and interferes with the discipline and good order of the school.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday March 29, @11:49PM
Childhood is the age the people learn to obey. And the American conservatives are all about obedience these days.
Likely, the law will stay for longer than you think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday March 30, @12:14PM
The law failing to survive the Trump appointed Supreme is the whole point: Whether it's signing the law to release Epstein grand jury records, signing laws to prevent children from using SNS or all the recent resignations, the Republican party is going through a civil war where the anti-Trump side is conducting a protect-the-children scorched-earth campaign to purge the Trump-supporting pedophile donors, elected officials and appointed officials.
This is already reflected in the houses where, due to donor interests untangling, traditionally non-republican bills are quietly passing through the floor.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday March 30, @06:51PM
...equal to those of DeSancimonious's presidential ...
Are you referring to Florida's first transgender governor, George Santos' sister Rhonda Santos? Dude, Trump's "humor" is so LAME. The man has no imagination at all.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 5, Touché) by Tork on Friday March 29, @11:16PM (3 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday March 29, @11:39PM
Oh, well, everyone gets to acknowledge reality sooner or later. And that bitch of reality? She has a liberal bias :large-grin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mcgrew on Saturday March 30, @07:02PM
They were always for the nanny state, against personal rights and freedoms. What they're against is regulating business in any way. It was Purina's God-given RIGHT to not have an elevator door when my Grandpa fell four stories in 1969 before there was an OSHA.
The Republicans were for the prohibition of alcohol, and of cannabis. They were the party of Joe McCarthy in the 1950s, and against civil rights in the 1960s.
They're also for taxing anybody or anything needed by the working class, and completely against taxes on the rich. Before WWII you had to owe over 4 times the median income to owe taxes, but the Republicans let the rich inflate workers' tax brackets in the inflationary Reagan and Bush days, while cutting capital gains taxes.
For the last half of the 20th century the Republicans were for the rich, the Democrats were for the poor, and nobody was for the workers. Now all of the workers are poor and both parties are only for the rich, or they would triple the minimum wage to match 1965's buying power.
A rising minimum wage is a rising tide, and a rising tide lifts all boats. Except, of course, the anchored yachts.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gnuman on Monday April 01, @12:45PM
Republicans are the party of "freedoms" as much as the Taliban is party of "women's rights". Everything they don't like (or their masters don't like) is deemed "communists" or "anti-american" or "anti-christian", ideally all. But everything they do like, like controlling women's bodies, they will shove down your throat in the name of freedoms. This is what totalitarian parties always have in common -- dictating.
Take for example global warming and trying to change our economy away from carbon based fuels. The "weak" Democrats are trying to pussyfoot around with policies, like subsidizing wind by mandating energy mix ratios or by mandating in few years that average vehicle carbon emissions will have to require electrification of part of the fleet. Republicans are not so weak, you see. They just ban it.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/2024/03/04/why-florida-wind-energy-turbine-climate-change-ban-offshore-beach/ [tampabay.com]
https://www.sciencealert.com/you-can-t-outlaw-hurricanes-how-north-carolina-turned-its-back-climate-change-bill-hb-819-nc-20-florence [sciencealert.com]
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday March 30, @12:21AM (2 children)
I'm an 77-year-old who lives in Montreal. How is the social media site going to know I'm not a 13-year-old in Florida?
(Score: 4, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 30, @12:46AM
Pinkie swear?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by EJ on Saturday March 30, @01:34AM
The first time you post a picture of yourself or say pretty much anything.
Kids are stupid and get themselves banned from video games all the time.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by epitaxial on Saturday March 30, @01:50AM (1 child)
Will all these conservatives watch their gay and tranny porn now?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Saturday March 30, @11:08AM
Old videos of J. Edna Hoover!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Interesting) by deimios on Saturday March 30, @04:12AM (4 children)
Unpopular opinion: since most social media already bans account creation under 13 years (FaceBook), or offers a restricted, supervised account type for them (Google), then why is it a problem if the state steps in to encourage the companies to actually enforce this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30, @01:42PM
The various social media companies also had policies in place to moderate harmful misinformation, hateful content, foreign entity bots, etc. Isn't there a decent overlap between the people backing this law and the people who vehemently decried the Government encouraging companies to actually enforce those policies?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 30, @02:35PM (2 children)
It's an obvious violation of the US Constitution. Maybe that should be actually enforced as well?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by corey on Saturday March 30, @11:02PM (1 child)
Whilst I don’t live in the US, and hence this isn’t my place, from my opinion social media ain’t any good for kids and this is backed up by research on social media impact on mental health of kids. So go for it Florida, I say!
Regarding this constitution always brought up, when it was written there was no social media, internet, computers or even electricity. I really don’t think it’s much of a defence here but yeah maybe the purist courts will think otherwise. Why stop kids seeing hardcore porn then?
Then again, the wannabe dictator who actually wants to corrupt democracy was just given the green light in a couple of states to be on the ballot after the courts overturned the constitutional insurrection thing. I thought that was pretty clear cut use of the constitution and it actually is relevant to what he did. Unlike stopping banning social media based on a free speech clause.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 31, @02:46AM
From my opinion, heresy isn't good for kids and this is backed by embarrassingly fabricated research on the impact of Satan. So go for it?
My point on that was that it was unconstitutional because there wasn't an actual conviction for insurrection (by Trump or anyone else for that matter). Without that, you're just leaning on the whim of a judge rather than actual law. It was a good call. Consider that we have protests all the time just like the January 6 one. For example, French farmers blocking roads until the French legislature acceded to their demands. Or the Seattle Capitol Hill Protest Zone where a bunch of protesters just took over a neighborhood. These deliberately interfere with society, the working of government, and the implementation of law. But nobody choose to interpret them as insurrections.
This is a propaganda stance and thus, an unworthy basis for taking someone off of a ballot.
(Score: 4, Funny) by datapharmer on Saturday March 30, @01:45PM
This "think of the children" law coincides so nicely with the other law they passed that weakens child labor protection: https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/florida-legislature-approves-bills-to-weaken-floridas-child-labor-laws-36365134 [orlandoweekly.com]
I mean if kids get used to using social media they could start organizing their labor and we all know that's no good for business.