This is obviously unconstitutional and it'll be shot down in the courts before it takes effect since this is their version of KOSA among other First Amendment issues.
Some context here: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/11/nys-safe-for-kids-act-a-...
Some context here: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/11/nys-safe-for-kids-act-a-...
"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Well, is social media "speech" or "press"?
Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines, and in general, certain topics and words aren't allowed in the daytime.
Another example: Tobacco advertising is severely curtailed, *especially advertising targeted towards minors."
In this case, what isn't restricted is social media platforms ability to express ideas or otherwise function as "press." Instead, what's restricted is the addictive nature and activities that cause psychological harm.
Speech.
> Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines
As far as the content restrictions, they only need to do so if they are broadcast channels (or cable rebroadcasts of broadcast channels), and FCC is constitutionally prohibited from regulating speech on cable-only channels. The argument for why they can do broadcast is the "compelling government interest" in policing the inherently limited broadcast spectrum, which (quite frankly) is pretty shaky precedent if you ask me.
> Another example: Tobacco advertising is severely curtailed
Advertising is commercial speech, which the government has much more powerful abilities to restrict than expressive speech.
In the case of the FCC, there's a clear difference between a radio signal, and the message it carries.
If you think the FCC is unconstitutional, I don't think you are able to make an argument with merit regarding social media.
whichever benefits them at that point in time
I also wonder if this is a first salvo to get users to submit IDs before using online services. How do you determine if a user is a minor or an adult without some form of ID, right?
You want to get adults addicted and express yourself to them, so be it, but the legal distinction on limitations on what you can express to minors is well documented.
Anyone can go to pornhub and see a landing page full of highly explicit sexual images without any kind of age verification whatsoever. How is this legal, if what you say is true? Is it just that they don't know it's a minor on the other side of the screen, so they can say it's not "intentional"?
This is an adult website
This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity. By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content.
I am 18 or older - Enter
I am under 18 - ExitMaybe it's geo-location dependent?
Not in an increasing number of states where age verification is now required.
Hochul told a reporter, “we’ve checked to make sure, we believe it’s constitutional.” And, that’s just laughable. Checked with whom? Every attempt I saw to call out these concerns was brushed off as “just spewing big tech’s talking points.”
The Constitution is not a “big tech talking point.” What the actual research shows is not a “big tech talking point.”
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/21/today-we-save-our-childr...
It’s not putting restrictions on content that can be shown.
If the speech is theirs, they are responsible for its content.
They aren't common carriers and never have been.
[2] Content discrimination
[3] Has the unfortunate side effect of restricting LGBTQIA+ youth and adults' speech
There's a reason why most of these bills are legally challenged.