I can't see how this could pass 1st amendment scrutiny.
- "FIRE’s lawsuit asks Utah to halt enforcement of the law and declare it invalid. Other states — including New Jersey and Louisiana — are proposing and enacting similar laws that threaten Americans’ fundamental rights. In Arkansas and Ohio, courts have blocked enforcement of these laws."
https://www.thefire.org/news/lawsuit-utahs-clumsy-attempt-ch... ("Lawsuit: Utah’s clumsy attempt to childproof social media is an unconstitutional mess")
I.e. at least four states' legislatures have passed laws like this, federal injunctions have paused two. Two others (Utah, Louisiana) aren't in effect yet.
I think those things are a bit more black and white.
How do you define social media? Is HN social media? You engage with others through comments, posts are ranked and it has voting elements as well as your profile has a gamified score for upvotes. Is a Disqus comment on any website social media if that's how we broadly define social media? Where do we draw the line?
You could make a case that leaving reviews on a site are a form of social media too. You can post something there and feel like you need to check back in hopes someone leaves a like or replies. If it were a wearable item you might take a picture of yourself and now hope people engage with it.
Drawing the lines between what types of media are and aren’t allowed is a major issue with this type of law, regardless of if you think it’s a good idea or not.
"I hope someone likes my review" is not that much different than "I hope someone likes my tweet" or "I hope someone replies to my IG post" or "I hope someone replies to my HN comment".
All 4 scenarios trigger the same thing which is setting up a future expectation that's hopefully met while you wait with anticipation of the event. Is that the process they are trying to get a handle on?
Personally I don't know how any of that could get enforced. Even making the internet read-only wouldn't work because that wouldn't stop people from internally comparing themselves to someone else who is allowed to post. Although that type of thing has been going on since advertising existed.
E.g. alcohol. How do we stop kids form drinking alcohol? How do you define alcohol? What about kids medicine that includes alcohol, what about medical procedures that insert substances with alcohol content. What about shops that get conned by kids with fake ID. What if the label gets scratched off and kid doesn't know it had alcohol. What if a parent gives their child a sip of beer. What about old home remedies that include whiskey. What about colic medicine that has alcohol, okay What about carving exceptions for babies, etc etc etc.
Granted some of those are contrived, but it's not as black and White as you think.
As for voting, it's constitutionally mandated that 18 or older can vote, which implies there's no constitutional mandate for anyone younger.
>"In Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), the Supreme Court upheld a harmful to minors, or “obscene as to minors,” law, affirming the illegality of giving persons under 17 years of age access to expressions or depictions of nudity and sexual content for “monetary consideration.”
>Judge Fuld of the Nassau County District Court had convicted Sam Ginsberg, who owned a small convenience store in Long Island, New York, where he sold “adult magazines” and was accused of selling them to a 16-year-old boy on two occasions."
It's not good for kids to have unrestricted access to pornography in the same way that it's not good for them to have access to unrestricted social media.
Alcohol and Tobacco are pretty straightforward in the public health context. And you probably don't want your toddlers to drive a car given the risk. The voting age is an exception as it's defined in the 26th amendment. I consider it as political compromise though.
If someone could extralegally ground me with no devices if I say something they don't like (provided that it's speech protected under the First Amendment -- since not all speech is), I essentially have no First Amendment right.
Also, do kids even <<have>> freedom of speech?
In this case, we're sort of at the edge of the legal definition. Social media can be viewed as the modern version of the town square (can be, isn't 100% proven out in law yet). If one takes that statement as valid, then the government cannot regulate speech through social media without a very good reason.
But, minors don't have the exact same rights as adults for various reasons (guns, alcohol, privacy at school, etc).
My general impression (IANAL)... the government can likely limit minors' speech on media platforms, however that limit would have to very specific and tightly defined so as not to deny speech to adults. The devil is in the details (implementation)... the legality probably hinges on what method is required to verify age.
Just as the founding fathers intended, children brandishing fully automatic firearms. James Madison is turning in his grave!
To your point, children cannot own weapons. Most states are a minimum 18 years old for if not 21.
Full automatic weapons have been banned from civilian production for decades now. Semi automatic weapons are not weapons of war; are not the death machines non-gun owners think they are.
I was very anti gun until we (the wife and I) had a need to defend ourselves. We were literally put in a self defense position. We're both all in now and actively train ourselves and educate ourselves. More so, friends that are anti gun are no longer anti gun once they go to the range with me and are educated on what a semi automatic weapon actually is.
TL;DR - anyone anti gun is simple uneducated in the matter.