TALHASSEE — As state lawyers told federal judges, the 2024 Florida law aimed at protecting children from social media platforms was scrutinized Friday.
The law aims to prevent children under the age of 16 from opening social media accounts on certain platforms, but parents can allow children aged 14 and 15 to have an account. Children under the age of 14 are prohibited from having an account.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice filed a lawsuit in October, including high-tech giants such as Google and the Meta platform, claiming the law – then-house speakers Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast violated their speech rights, and parents must decide on their children’s use of social media.
State lawyers, among other things, argue that trade associations do not have legal status to challenge the law, and that restrictions regulate commercial activities rather than speech.
Kevin Gorenbieski, who works in Attorney General James Usmier’s office, told U.S. District Judge Mark Walker on Friday that the law is working on a social media platform that “relies on their products” and that “the mental health crisis… has hurt a generation of children.”
“We don’t choose any kind of content,” Golembiski said. “If newspaper companies were knitting and selling papers on LSD, we could regulate them.”
State lawyers say the law does not violate the right to speech, as children can use their parents’ accounts on social media platforms, their own accounts on “non-addictive” platforms, and even have their own accounts.
The law was supposed to come into effect on January 1, but state lawyers in November agreed not to enforce it until Walker controls the plaintiff’s request for an interim injunction.
Erin Murphy, a lawyer representing the technology group, told Walker that the law has not been “adjusted narrowly” enough to “cancellate” the right to the First Amendment.
A group of court documents also argue that the platform offers many ways for parents to control and monitor what their children have access to on social media.
But Golembiski told Walker that parental controls have no effect and the number of parents using such a tool is “single numbers.” He also pointed out that children can use their parents’ accounts.
Walker pressed state lawyers on the issue and said the state “empowered parents” to manage their children’s education.
“I don’t want to monitor them, like I want them to go read a book about two male penguins growing eggs together. I don’t want them to sign up for my account. I want my own Facebook account. You’ve taken that choice away from me, right?” the judge asked. “Florida chooses and chooses when parents want to make decisions. When that suits their purpose, they do. When they don’t, they don’t.”
How much can I-4 tolls increase the new system? $21, says FDOT, but not often
Golembiski calls such a debate “stellar” and argues that the “less-limited” approach is to “trust” social media platforms.
“It’s a similar argument to what tobacco companies made 50 years ago,” he said.
Walker also asked Murphy why the state prevented them from addressing the state’s efforts to see what government leaders maintain are important health issues for children.
“If you’re facing some kind of pandemic, are your state’s hands really tied up?” he asked, “Did you not police your kids first?”
Murphy said the state could not show that parental controls were not working.
“They can’t just go in and say they don’t think they’re effective because enough parents aren’t using them,” she said.
The law does not name any affected social media platforms. However, it includes definitions for such platforms, including algorithms, criteria such as “addictive features” and allowing users to view other users’ content and activities. The law covers businesses where 10% of daily users under the age of 16 spend an average of more than two hours a day on the forum.
Social media companies that violate the law can face a penalty of up to $50,000 for each violation. The law will also open them to cases filed on behalf of minors.
In the lawsuit, a high-tech group lawyer argued that the law is “the latest attempt in a long government effort to limit new forms of constitutionally protected forms based on concerns about the potential impact on minors.” Whether the platform is covered by law is “part of the time that minors spend on it,” and whether it employs tools designed to draw attention to the content it likes, the lawsuit said.
“But that metric allows states to restrict access to almost all media’s most popular segments for constitutional speeches, such as video games, page-rotating novels, or harsh television shows. The protected speeches of the burden that citizens find particularly interesting are in conflict with the First Amendment,” the plaintiff’s lawyer wrote.
Walker did not immediately take control after a three-hour hearing on Friday.
Stephanie Joyce, senior vice president and chief of staff at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, is called “very strict and overly strict restrictions,” which is unconstitutional.
“We talk about the websites care about millions of people and their ability to talk about the content that they like.
Joyce also challenged the state’s argument that the law (HB 3) does not regulate content.
“The simple fact is that the HB 3 attack is how websites show content to interested users, how to view content, how users can find content and interact with content. It’s absolutely content-based. It’s not just technology, it’s not just about what code they use. No. It’s about how these websites talk to users and how these users can consult with the website. It’s a speech,” she said.
Meanwhile, another pending lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of another part of the law that requires age verification to prevent minors from accessing online porn sites. The suit was filed by different plaintiffs.
News Services from Florida Issues Manager Tom Urban contributed.
Original issue: February 28, 2025, 7:36pm EST
