A federal judge is currently deliberating whether to halt the implementation of a Florida statute that prohibits children under 14 from having social media accounts and mandates parental consent for adolescents aged 14 and 15. This legislation, deemed one of the strictest in the nation concerning minors’ use of social media, was sanctioned by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2024. The law is under fire from industry organizations, which argue that it poses unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.
The court case, initiated by the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, is seeking a preliminary injunction to suspend parts of the law while their legal challenge is proceeding. U.S. District Judge Mark Walker heard the oral arguments on Friday. Proponents of the law claim it is essential to mitigate the burgeoning use of social media among the youth, which experts suggest correlates with rising rates of depression and anxiety.
“We’re not opening a Pandora’s box; we’re closing one,” stated Republican Representative Tyler Sirois, the bill’s sponsor. He further emphasized that the detrimental effects on children are well-documented and severe.
Throughout the session in Tallahassee, Judge Walker questioned the state’s representative, Kevin Golembiewski, on how the law does not infringe on free speech rights. Walker, who has previously critiqued the DeSantis administration, remarked on the significant challenge the state faces in proving that the law does not affect speech.
Supporters argue the legislation is poised to survive legal scrutiny as it restricts social media access based on addictive features, such as notification alerts and auto-play videos, instead of content. “The aim of the law is to address compulsive use,” Golembiewski stated. “It is not to address content,” allowing for unrestricted app usage if companies eschew addictive functions outlined in the legislation.
Erin Murphy, representing CCIA and NetChoice, whose members comprise tech giants like Google, Meta, X, and YouTube, critiqued the state’s stance as excessively harsh, highlighting that features like infinite scrolling are inherently linked to the content they display. “They are imposing a restriction on the ability to access expressive activity,” Murphy argued, asserting that it clearly affects First Amendment rights.
Stephanie Joyce, leading CCIA’s Litigation Center, contends that the law erects “significant barriers” to accessing online information every American, including children, has the right to. “This ‘internet rationing’ law blocks access to lawful content and exemplifies the state’s unlawful attempt to police free speech,” Joyce declared in a formal statement.
The state has refrained from enforcing the law, initially scheduled to take effect on January 1, pending the lawsuit’s outcome. Judge Walker has indicated he will thoroughly review both arguments before making a decision as promptly as possible.
