Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 783 posts

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#741

Post by frumper »

anon373839 wrote: post #662
hn_acker wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, the test courts use when they evaluate the constitutionality of a law that curtails a fundamental right (such as speech) is twofold: 1) Does the law serve a compelling government interest? 2) Is the law narrowly tailored to serve that interest? Almost right. Strict scrutiny has a third factor [1]: Does the law use the available method which is least restrictive of speech? An alternative method to banning youn…

I almost feel embarrassed to be so pedantic, but it's actually not clear that it is a third factor. Quite a few scholars interpret this requirement as being a component of "narrow tailoring", or vice versa. Realistically, I don't think many cases will hinge on this distinction: if a less restrictive method exists that can serve the compelling interest comparably well, then of course the more restrictive method isn't…

Parental consent would be less restrictive than what this law proposes.

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#742

Post by singleshot_ »

everforward wrote: post #708
Clubber wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>PruneYards was found not to be significantly harmed by the expressive activity, because the goal of the commercial activity is to sell stuff. But the goal of an online social media platform is to curate a coherent speech product, and allowing people to insert themselves unwanted into that product is a very significant imposition on the platform. That is true but unrelated to the DeSantis law. The social media compan…

Oh, apologies if ordering shifted. I was replying to another replier, but unable to do it on their actual post. I'm not particularly rooting for this either. I am sympathetic that social media might be bad for kids, but this isn't the way

I think in the first couple minutes after posting, replies are disabled.

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#743

Post by WalterBright »

autoexec wrote: post #551
WalterBright wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the government wants 'papers please' for you to access a website should really scare everyone We've been doing that for R and X movies forever.

> We've been doing that for R and X movies forever. Those aren't enforced by the government. Movie ratings and the enforcement of them are entirely voluntary on the part of producers and theaters. Some films are released that are non-rated, and enforcement at the ticket booth/theater level has never been consistent or particularly effective. Enforcement by retail is basically non-existent (Nobody is stopping a 13 yea…

Wasn't Janet Jackson fined for a nipslip during her Superbowl Show?

I recall Howard Stern being fined $millions for indecency on radio.

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#744

Post by itishappy »

patrickmay wrote: post #163
CSMastermind wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd unironically support raising the voting age in the US to 25. I was an idiot when I was 18 and had no business picking a leader of any kind. There's something to be said for waiting until people have actual life experience.

I support that idea because I think you should be in the work force and experience both taxation and laws personally before voting on them.

Believe it or not, our laws apply to children too! Other government programs that can affect children include schools, roads, libraries, healthcare, welfare... They're personally affected by a lot of political stuff.

While we're at it, why should adults be the ones deciding how the public school system works? It's been more than 10 years since I was in school, I doubt my experience is still relevant.

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#745

Post by spicykraken »

wvenable wrote: post #433
spicykraken wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children aren't allowed to play slot machines either and that's what TikTok (and Youtube Shorts, etc) sure feels like to me.

It might feel that way but what's the real difference between TikTok and watching TV? Society has always restricted children's access to specific content but now we're restricting children's access to specific mediums regardless of the content itself. Why is TikTok or YouTube shorts not a valid way to consume media? It's a bit like arguing graphic novels are acceptable to children but short comics are not.

Graphic novels and short comics are a finite medium, they have a beginning and an end. There's not a very practical way to doom scroll away your entire weekend with comic books. You will eventually run out of comic books or run out of places to put them.

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#746

Post by freejazz »

philwelch wrote: post #665
freejazz wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the argument is that states are not laboratories for behaviors that violate the constitutional rights of others, or in the case of this law, go beyond the legislative branch's constitutional powers, so that just suggesting there isn't an experiment is in itself not sufficient to defend this law.

I don’t think banning social media use by minors either violates constitutional rights or exceeds constitutional powers. And the constitutional powers of a state legislature to enact state laws are extremely broad; much more so than the powers of Congress to enact federal laws.

Well such speech restrictions have been found unconstitutional by the supreme court in prior cases, so I'm not so sure what your "characterization" of the law and its alleged constitutionality is based upon. Further, what point is it that state legislatures have broader powers than Congress? They still have no power to exceed the boundaries of the first amendment, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there either.

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#747

Post by jorvi »

chownie wrote: post #685
dmitrygr wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> plenty of other places have had success with it Which places, and what do you call success? The only place in the world that seems to have drugs handled properly is Singapore.

With the always caveat that no other nation can replicate what Singapore does without widespread use of slavery or culling/exiling the poor.

Not only that, people (well, mammals) want to get high. Alchohol is so much more destructive than weed or MDMA, on both a personal or societal scale. If you’d ban alcohol, people will just sniff glue or start brewing their own bathtub hooch.

Legalization + proper harm reduction + strict enforcement on public (ab)use is ultimately the way. You get a triple win of tax income, freed up police resources and less pressure on the healthcare system.

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#748

Post by maximinus_thrax »

WalterBright wrote: post #743
autoexec wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've been doing that for R and X movies forever. Those aren't enforced by the government. Movie ratings and the enforcement of them are entirely voluntary on the part of producers and theaters. Some films are released that are non-rated, and enforcement at the ticket booth/theater level has never been consistent or particularly effective. Enforcement by retail is basically non-existent (Nobody is stopping a 13 yea…

Wasn't Janet Jackson fined for a nipslip during her Superbowl Show? I recall Howard Stern being fined $millions for indecency on radio.

> Wasn't Janet Jackson fined for a nipslip during her Superbowl Show?

Overturned by the SCOTUS because of all of that free speech. And CBS was fined, not Janet Jackson. And the Howard Stern content is a well-known free speech issue. And OP was responding to your comment about movies. None of these are movies, so I don't understand why you would bring up something like this. Public radio and TV broadcast are a different beast. Is your argument that private social media services are akin to public broadcasters? Let's see what the courts think.

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#749

Post by frumper »

frumper wrote: post #741
anon373839 wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost feel embarrassed to be so pedantic, but it's actually not clear that it is a third factor. Quite a few scholars interpret this requirement as being a component of "narrow tailoring", or vice versa. Realistically, I don't think many cases will hinge on this distinction: if a less restrictive method exists that can serve the compelling interest comparably well, then of course the more restrictive method isn't…

Parental consent would be less restrictive than what this law proposes.

Thinking about this, the government is all over the place. A 16 year old minor can decide for themselves, the government trusts a parent to make the decision for a 14-15 year old, and the government doesn't trust anyone to make the decision for a 13 year old. Either a kid needs to be protected or they don't. If they do, either you trust the parents to make the decision or you don't.

I can't think of a single argument that fits with trusting a parent's choice for a 14 year old that doesn't trust it for a 13 year old, that also ignore's that parent's choice for a 16 year old.

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#750

Post by itishappy »

stale2002 wrote: post #575
itishappy wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and drawing arbitrary lines is guaranteed to step on toes. In some ways, the fairest way is to draw it at the extreme (I'm not suggesting this is best, just that it sidesteps this particular issue). Children are humans, they're affected by political pressures same as the rest (and they'll experience these pressure for longer than most of us). We're also already choosing not to restrict voting based on assumed…

> Why? There's arguments both ways, what's the reasoning? The reason is loki's fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. For legal purposes we simply have to pick a line. But regardless if the exact location of that line is arbitrary, it is still useful none the less. There is no real issue with having an arbitrary line, if it is impractical to not have an arbitrary line, and useful none the less. To give more obvious examp…

For the record, I don't think that we're wrong to implement a minimum voting age, and I don't think toddlers should vote, but I still think it's a worthwhile thing to consider.

If (as I assume) our goal is to restrict voting to those deemed mature and of sound mind, then I'd expect to see similar laws enforcing such restrictions in other sectors of the populace. But we don't see that! Instead we see laws explicitly granting the right to vote to the elderly and mentally disabled. It's possible to end up in a situation where an individual is deemed mentally unfit to manage their own finances or medical decisions, but still able to influence the governance of an entire nation.

I'm personally quite fascinated by this. Maybe my assumptions are wrong! Wouldn't that be neat? My goal is not to suggest that our policy is bad or wrong, it's to suggest that the "allegedly unethical scenario of having a voting age" is actually quite complex and interesting!

Dumb example: Should Brittney Spears have the right to vote?

Interesting example: Should felons?

Post reply on HN