3 ms·

> Let the experiment take place, I say It is an unconstitutional law; it is following the path of similar unconstitutional laws¹²³. Where is the experiment? ¹

> Let the experiment take place, I say It is an unconstitutional law; it is following the path of similar unconstitutional laws¹²³. Where is the experiment? ¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan... ²https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberti... (sections about minor access to indecent material struck down) ³https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/ohsdce/2:2024cv00047/287455/33/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/oh...

LVB 3y ago
These rulings are 13 and 27 years old (the third is in progress), so I'd argue that revisiting the legal analysis of the laws and precedents is useful here in itself.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  What's changed in 27 years to make you say this? Certainly not the Constitution. The last amendment was passed over 30 years ago.
  - koolba 3y ago
    27 years ago we didn’t have children spending 90% of their waking hours staring at network connected devices. Only the nerds did that and it was in a computer lab. And they knew enough about keeping up appearances to hit Alt-Tab when an adult was getting close.
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      How is that legally relevant?
      - koolba 3y ago
        As society changes, it’s reasonable for a court to re-examine the effects of previously decided legislation to gauge whether the impact and societal cost can be justified. It’s not like we don’t have other laws that restrict what we can do or where we can do it.
        d3nj4l 3y ago
        How would that change the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the matter?
        BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
        Rulings on the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of laws are issued by a body of people which changes over time, and have been known to be overturned or updated.
  - LVB 3y ago
    Maybe they are all relevant upon full scrutiny, but that isn't obvious to me (albeit IANAL). I know what my kids buying a potentially violent video game is like, and I know it is very different than participating in social media. And regarding the CDA in the 90's, take some of the opinion: In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve. That's just me grabbing a snippet from Wikipedia, but it seems like a different issue than the impact of social media and whether it should be allowed by minors w/o parental consent.
  - zuminator 3y ago
    Those rulings all differ from the current situation in multiple aspects. For example, it was determined that the VG industry is effectively self-regulating. It's questionable that Tiktok is effectively regulating itself with respect to minors. And the CDA required the government to unconstitutionally determine decency, whereas the Florida law is about access. But of course the elephant in the room is that the makeup of the Court has changed in a markedly more conservative direction and has proven itself not averse to revisiting previously settled law.
  - amelius 3y ago
    What is constitutional about releasing psychological warfare techniques on children? Because that is what these social media platforms are doing.
  - lupire 3y ago
    Maybe those rulings were wrong. The Constitution says to "promote the general welfare".
anon373839 3y ago
I only see these as approximate precedents in the rough sense that they involve limiting minors’ access to speech. Otherwise, factually, I can see several distinguishing features: - social media being optimized for addiction - social media potentially compromising minors’ physical safety - social media use having documented adverse mental health outcomes for minors - the fact that social media use requires an ongoing contractual relationship between the company and the minor I could see these factors tipping the balance on the “compelling government interest” question, though I see less of an argument for “narrow tailoring”.
- MeImCounting 3y ago
  Only that last feature seems relevant IMO. I think that the rest of the points you brought up are cultural problems and therefore not in the purview of legality
  - anon373839 3y ago
    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? The features I listed all relate to “protecting the children” in some way, which is why I thought they could be the basis for courts to distinguish previous case law regarding the first part of the test.
    - hn_acker 3y ago
      > 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 young children on social media could be to apply the caretaker-consent-or-ban condition on social media only for students on the physical premises of public schools while having the public schools teach students the pros and cons of social media (hopefully noting that social media is more helpful than harmful for most teenagers [2]). Enforcement would fall on parents and public school teachers. That's less restrictive of minors' speech rights because the ban doesn't apply everywhere, and also less chilling of social media sites' speech rights because having to collect more of users' personal information for age verification is burdensome. Not saying that my example method is a good one, just more likely to pass strict scrutiny. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability [2] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/yet-another-massive-study-says-theres-no-evidence-that-social-media-is-inherently-harmful-to-teens/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/yet-another-massive-stud...
quasarj 3y ago
It's an experiment in if the new court will actually care

LVB 3y ago

These rulings are 13 and 27 years old (the third is in progress), so I'd argue that revisiting the legal analysis of the laws and precedents is useful here in itself.

Paul-Craft 3y ago
What's changed in 27 years to make you say this? Certainly not the Constitution. The last amendment was passed over 30 years ago.
- koolba 3y ago
  27 years ago we didn’t have children spending 90% of their waking hours staring at network connected devices. Only the nerds did that and it was in a computer lab. And they knew enough about keeping up appearances to hit Alt-Tab when an adult was getting close.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    How is that legally relevant?
    - koolba 3y ago
      As society changes, it’s reasonable for a court to re-examine the effects of previously decided legislation to gauge whether the impact and societal cost can be justified. It’s not like we don’t have other laws that restrict what we can do or where we can do it.
      - d3nj4l 3y ago
        How would that change the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the matter?
        BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
        Rulings on the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of laws are issued by a body of people which changes over time, and have been known to be overturned or updated.
- LVB 3y ago
  Maybe they are all relevant upon full scrutiny, but that isn't obvious to me (albeit IANAL). I know what my kids buying a potentially violent video game is like, and I know it is very different than participating in social media. And regarding the CDA in the 90's, take some of the opinion: In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve. That's just me grabbing a snippet from Wikipedia, but it seems like a different issue than the impact of social media and whether it should be allowed by minors w/o parental consent.
- zuminator 3y ago
  Those rulings all differ from the current situation in multiple aspects. For example, it was determined that the VG industry is effectively self-regulating. It's questionable that Tiktok is effectively regulating itself with respect to minors. And the CDA required the government to unconstitutionally determine decency, whereas the Florida law is about access. But of course the elephant in the room is that the makeup of the Court has changed in a markedly more conservative direction and has proven itself not averse to revisiting previously settled law.
- amelius 3y ago
  What is constitutional about releasing psychological warfare techniques on children? Because that is what these social media platforms are doing.
- lupire 3y ago
  Maybe those rulings were wrong. The Constitution says to "promote the general welfare".

anon373839 3y ago

I only see these as approximate precedents in the rough sense that they involve limiting minors’ access to speech. Otherwise, factually, I can see several distinguishing features: - social media being optimized for addiction - social media potentially compromising minors’ physical safety - social media use having documented adverse mental health outcomes for minors - the fact that social media use requires an ongoing contractual relationship between the company and the minor I could see these factors tipping the balance on the “compelling government interest” question, though I see less of an argument for “narrow tailoring”.

MeImCounting 3y ago
Only that last feature seems relevant IMO. I think that the rest of the points you brought up are cultural problems and therefore not in the purview of legality
- anon373839 3y ago
  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? The features I listed all relate to “protecting the children” in some way, which is why I thought they could be the basis for courts to distinguish previous case law regarding the first part of the test.
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    > 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 young children on social media could be to apply the caretaker-consent-or-ban condition on social media only for students on the physical premises of public schools while having the public schools teach students the pros and cons of social media (hopefully noting that social media is more helpful than harmful for most teenagers [2]). Enforcement would fall on parents and public school teachers. That's less restrictive of minors' speech rights because the ban doesn't apply everywhere, and also less chilling of social media sites' speech rights because having to collect more of users' personal information for age verification is burdensome. Not saying that my example method is a good one, just more likely to pass strict scrutiny. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability [2] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/yet-another-massive-study-says-theres-no-evidence-that-social-media-is-inherently-harmful-to-teens/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/yet-another-massive-stud...

quasarj 3y ago

It's an experiment in if the new court will actually care