4 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoWhat'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 ago27 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 agoHow is that legally relevant?
- koolba 3y agoAs 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 agoHow would that change the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the matter?
- BHSPitMonkey 3y agoRulings 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 agoMaybe 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 agoThose 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 agoWhat is constitutional about releasing psychological warfare techniques on children? Because that is what these social media platforms are doing.
- lupire 3y agoMaybe those rulings were wrong. The Constitution says to "promote the general welfare".