New Florida Law banning kids under 16 from social media goes into effect Jan 1

Bad analogy … A minor can say just about anything they want in school, even shouting crap out during a test, and not be ARRESTED for it. The school could punish them for it in a multitude of other ways, but school rules don’t make speech a crime, as this law does.

 

Courts defer to schools in regulating speech due to the special circumstances of the forum and their educational mission. There are no special circumstances in this scenario. It's simply a restraint on speech. Pornography presents different issues because obscenity is unprotected speech. (Although, attempts to regulate pornography on the internet have failed in the past. See Reno v. ACLU and ACLU v. Ashcroft. However, Ginsberg v. New York is still good law for minors, so an internet-based regulation could pass muster if it is sufficiently targeted.)

Based on current precedents, Florida is in a bad spot. While the government has more leeway to restrict children's speech and access to speech, that leeway is still very limited. For example, in 2011, the Supreme Court struck down a California law banning children from buying violent video games on First Amendment grounds. California tried to claim these games were harmful to minors to justify the ban. (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association.) They still lost. Florida is going to have to survive strict scrutiny, and they're going to lose on the narrow tailoring (to survive strict scrutiny, a speech restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of achieving that interest). A categorical ban on children accessing social media, regardless of what their parents want, is not narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means.

Precedents can always change. And it's hard to say with certainty what SCOTUS would do here. But considering it granted cert to address a Texas law targeting internet pornography after the Fifth Circuit upheld that law, it implies to me that they're not looking to weaken protections for free speech on the internet. Of course, my read of that could be wrong. We'll see. The case is being argued in the spring.

P.S. The Constitution does protect your access to platforms and vehicles for speech. You receive less protection in some forums than others, but speech on social media and other internet discussion sites tends to receive the broadest protection, akin to a traditional public forum (like a park).

 

Thanks, I was hoping you would come along to answer @tilly 's question. I didn't want to leave him hanging without a response, but you addressed it far better than I would have been able to.

(More than a little baffled by how your post got a "Funny" rating, someone must be slamming the "adult" eggnog a little early.)

 

Ron Desantis is an anti-freedom dildo. Please stop voting wannabe authoritarians like this into office just because they have an R next to their name.

 

The school is literally the government and it 100% will punish a child for when they exercise speech.

 

Thanks!

It's a poster I have on ignore. He and Bluke sometimes do it. I assume they're trolling or looking for attention. Whatever floats their boats lol.

 

But there is a difference between "rules" and "laws" ... can you at least acknowledge that? The First Amendment bans LAWS that prohibit free speech. Government making conduct rules on their quasi-private property and buildings (like schools, court rooms, post offices, military bases, etc.) is fine and already upheld in courts, because those are not "free speech forums". Goverment making a law that a person can't tweet from their own home is highly questionable and not even comparable to your school example.

 

15 year olds should adapt quickly to the "I am over 16" button, seeing as how effectively the "I am over 18" button has deterred them.

 

Free speech is not unlimited. Whether this is a proper limit remains to be seen. Personally, I found that social media was the devil, containing far more harm than benefit, so I canceled all my SM accounts. * I have no problem with government intervening in Big Tech's poisoning of our youth for IMMENSE profit.

* The latest outrage by Big Tech is unregulated AI, yet again for the purpose of immense profit by a few.

I realize my view will not be the majority's on TH, and I do understand the opposing view.

 

You make good points.

 

Generally, no. In some situations, yes. The standard for K-12 schools is highly deferential. But it is possible for a school to run afoul of it. (See Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.)

The distinction that matters here isn't rules vs. laws. Rules can still violate the Constitution. But you are correct that it is based on the forum and the government's interest in managing speech in that forum (as well as the public's diminished interests in free speech in that specific forum). And yes, the difference between the interest in speaking freely (and accessing ideas freely) in your own home vs. speaking in a structured and controlled environment like a school is very significant.

 

But they can regulate how and when. For instance, during a test. It seems social kedia could be a how or when.

That was my question. (If that makes sense).

 

Ok.

 

What you're referring to are called time, place, and manner restrictions. For example, the government can say, "No protests after midnight at this park." It can also say, "No protesting in the mayor's office." Or it can say, "No using megaphones in the courtyard outside the courthouse unless you get a permit." But it can't categorically deny expressive activity to a group of people in a traditional public forum unless its restriction satisfies strict scrutiny.

This is what the Supreme Court said a few years back when it struck down on First Amendment grounds a law barring convicted sex offenders from using social media sites that allow children to create accounts:
Even with these assumptions about the scope of the law and the State's interest, the statute here enacts a prohibition unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens. Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another about it on any subject that might come to mind. Supra, at 1735 – 1736. By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” Reno, 521 U.S., at 870, 117 S.Ct. 2329.

In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.
Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98, 107–08 (2017).

If the state of North Carolina cannot ban sex offenders from social media sites, I'd say it's very unlikely Florida can ban every child under the age of 14, regardless of parental consent, from social media sites. And the law in Packingham failed under intermediate scrutiny, which only shows how difficult it'll be for this Florida law to pass muster.

 

Thanks GL, can you give us the gist of the NY law?

 

It's summarized here:
Ginsberg v. New York (1968)