SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 30 2024, @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 2024, @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 2024, @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.