(October 28, 2024. El Venezolano).- In a long-awaited action, Two internet industry groups on Monday filed a constitutional challenge to a new Florida law aimed at keeping children off social media platforms.
The Association of the Computer and Communications Industry and NetChoice, whose members include tech giants like Google and Meta Platforms, said in a federal lawsuit that the law violates First Amendment rights and that parents should make decisions about children’s use of social media.
“While states have a legitimate interest in protecting minors who use such services, completely restricting the ability of minors (and adults) to access them is not a specific means of promoting that interest,” the statement says. 48 page lawsuit. “In a nation that values the First Amendment, the preferred response is to let parents decide “What language and media your minor children can access, including using the many tools available to monitor their Internet activities.”
Ads
The bill (HB 3) was a priority for House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, and became one of the biggest issues of the 2024 legislative session. Industry groups repeatedly signaled they would challenge the constitutionality of the law, and Renner and Attorney General Ashley Moody vowed to defend it.
«You better believe it, I’m going to fight like hell to defend this in court“Moody said in March during an event where Governor Ron DeSantis signed the bill.
The law, in part, seeks to prevent children under 16 from opening social media accounts on some platforms, although it would allow parents to give consent for young people under 14 and 15 years old have accounts. Children under 14 years of age would not be able to open accounts.
Renner and other key supporters argued that social media companies have created addictive platforms that harm children’s mental health and can lead to sexual predators communicate with minors.
Renner said in March that the law focuses on the platforms’ addictive features and not social media content, an approach he said was designed to withstand a First Amendment challenge. The law is expected to comes into effect on January 1.
«In this bill you will not find a single line that addresses good or bad speech because that would violate the First Amendment. We haven’t addressed that issue at all,” said Renner, an attorney. “What we have addressed are the addictive characteristics that are the main reason children stay on these platforms for hours on end.”
But Monday’s demand, filed in the Northern District of Florida, claims that similar laws have been blocked by courts in other states. It states that Florida “cannot begin to demonstrate that its draconian restrictions on access are necessary to promote any legitimate interest it may claim.”
“Parents already have a host of tools at their disposal to limit the online services their minor children use, which can do in those services and the frequency with which they can use them»the lawsuit states. “Florida could use more Floridians to share their own opinions on whether minors should use ‘social media platforms.’ But while the state can take many steps to protect minors from harm, including persuading parents to take advantage of tools to limit their minor children’s access to ‘social media platforms,’ it cannot take the matter into its own hands. your own hands and restrict access yourself.
The law does not mention the social media platforms that would be affected, but includes a definition of such platforms, with criteria related to aspects such as algorithms, “addictive features” and allowing users to view the content or activities of other users, reported CBS
The lawsuit repeatedly referenced sites like YouTube and Facebook, though it also said the law would not apply to services like Disney+.
“While the law purports to address ‘addictive features,’ it does not restrict access to all media that employ similar features to attract their audiences,” attorneys for the industry groups wrote. “The law exposes services like Disney+, Hulu, and Roblox, even though many minors spend hours on these services each day, and even though they employ the same so-called ‘addictive features,’ such as custom algorithms, push notifications, and autoplay.” . “The state’s only obvious justification for restricting access to Facebook and YouTube while leaving many other means of expression intact is the state’s apparent belief that the covered websites offer content that the state considers particularly harmful.”
If social media companies violate the law, they could face fines of up to $50,000 per violation. The law would also expose them to lawsuits filed on behalf of minors.
The lawsuit, which includes Moody as a defendant, seeks an injunction to prevent the restrictions from remaining in effect. It does not challenge a separate part of the law that requires age verification to try to prevent those under 18 from accessing online pornographic sites.
The Computer and Communications Industry Association and NetChoice have also been locked in a protracted legal battle with the state over a 2021 law that placed restrictions on large social media companies. Those restrictions included preventing platforms from banning political candidates from their sites and requiring companies to publish (and consistently enforce) standards on issues such as banning users or blocking their content.
A federal district judge and appeals court blocked much of the 2021 law based on the First Amendment, but this year the U.S. Supreme Court returned the case for further consideration.
Ads
