If news is consumed in sound bites and headlines on social media, Florida’s new social media ban for minors could be a big win for lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis.
They get to claim, “We’re fighting for children” — no doubt that’ll be the soundbite — and hope that Floridians stop paying attention when the law is caught up in legal challenges that might prevent it from ever taking effect.
It’s hard to feel any sympathy for the so-called “Big Tech” companies that will be impacted by it. And who doesn’t agree that social media presents serious risks to children and young teenagers? Accountability for tech companies, which control so much of the flow of information today, is welcome.
But should it come in the form of a law that appears to infringe on young people’s free speech constitutional rights? And one whose implementation raises more questions than bill supporters cared to answer?
With a legal challenge to House Bill 3 almost certain, taxpayers, who have footed the bill for myriad DeSantis policies facing lawsuits, will incur the costs of fighting another issue in court. Similar social media laws from other states have been temporarily blocked by judges due to court challenges, but Florida couldn’t wait to find out if those similar measures eventually pass judicial scrutiny before making a big splash.
DeSantis signed HB 3 this week after vetoing a previous version that he said didn’t allow for parental choice. Indeed, the bill he signed is an improvement. It does allow parents to decide whether 14-and-15-year-olds can access social media. But kids 13 and younger would be banned with no say from the parents. (The previous version stopped kids 16 and younger from creating social media accounts.)
At this point, nobody knows for sure which platforms will be affected and lawmakers have done their best not to name them. The legislation targets unnamed sites with “addictive features” such as infinite scrolling and push alerts, and where at least 10% of users are under 16 and spend at least two hours per day on the platform.
Those platforms will be forced to automatically remove accounts they categorize as belonging to someone under 14. How will they determine who’s of age and who isn’t? Again, that’s not clear.
The bill’s previous version required all users, even adult ones, to show identification. DeSantis objected to that provision because he wanted to maintain “the ability of adults to engage in anonymous speech,” he wrote on X. The new version dropped that requirement, though adult websites still need to have third-party age verification software and ban access to anyone under 18.
In practice, however, social media companies might still need to collect sensitive personal information. NetChoice, a coalition of social media companies that’s expected to challenge the law, says that’s the only way to verify people’s ages and to make sure children have the necessary parental consent. Platforms, according to NetChoice, will have to store that information so they are “able to verify to the government that they are following the” law.
“This necessary collection will make social media websites a prime target for identity thieves, hackers and other bad actors,” NetChoice Vice President Carl Szabo wrote in a March 7 letter to DeSantis.
The age requirement poses another conundrum lawmakers didn’t fully address. At one point in their lives do Americans have the right to online free speech? The American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a statement that such restrictions infringe on the right of minors and adults to speak online, and that government cannot control the ideas families can let their children access.
When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California law that restricted the sale of violent video games to minors in 2011, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that “Not all of the children who are forbidden to purchase violent video games on their own have parents who care” whether they do so.
Likewise, Florida is excluding the parents who do not care if their children are on social media — or who see benefits from it. We are all — lawmakers included — allowed to have an opinion about when and whether children should have access to social media but enshrining it in law may be a step too far.
Click here to send the letter.
BEHIND OUR REPORTING
What's an editorial?
Editorials are opinion pieces that reflect the views of the Miami Herald Editorial Board, a group of opinion journalists that operates separately from the Miami Herald newsroom. Miami Herald Editorial Board members are: opinion editor Amy Driscoll and editorial writers Luisa Yanez and Isadora Rangel. Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.
What's the difference between an op-ed and a column?
How does the Miami Herald Editorial Board decide what to write about?
The Editorial Board, made up of experienced opinion journalists, primarily addresses local and state issues that affect South Florida residents. Each board member has an area of focus, such as education, COVID or local government policy. Board members meet daily and bring up an array of topics for discussion. Once a topic is fully discussed, board members will further report the issue, interviewing stakeholders and others involved and affected, so that the board can present the most informed opinion possible. We strive to provide our community with thought leadership that advocates for policies and priorities that strengthen our communities. Our editorials promote social justice, fairness in economic, educational and social opportunities and an end to systemic racism and inequality. The Editorial Board is separate from the reporters and editors of the Miami Herald newsroom.
How can I contribute to the Miami Herald Opinion section?
The Editorial Board accepts op-ed submissions of 650-700 words from community members who want to argue a specific viewpoint or idea that is relevant to our area. You can email an op-ed submission to oped@miamiherald.com. We also accept 150-word letters to the editor from readers who want to offer their points of view on current issues. For more information on how to submit a letter, go here.