The Joseph Woodrow Hatchett U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building in Tallahassee, Sept. 27, 2022. Credit: Michael Moline
Defending Florida’s social media ban for young people in a federal courtroom Friday, an attorney representing the state insisted the law does not infringe on constitutionally protected free speech but instead focuses on features of apps.
Two associations representing media giants like Meta, X, YouTube, and Google are seeking a preliminary injunction against HB 3, a 2024 law banning social media accounts for people younger than 14 years old.
Judge Mark Walker presided over the hearing in the Northern District Courthouse in Tallahassee that featured the associations, Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice. Following more than three hours of arguments, Walker declined to say when he would rule.
Former Attorney General Ashley Moody, before she was appointed to the U.S. Senate last month, agreed the state would not enforce the law while litigation plays out.
Erin Murphy, an attorney for the tech associations, insisted the state’s “draconian” approach violates free speech rights by blocking content from minors, while attorney for the state Kevin Golembiewski insisted the law is “agnostic to content.”
The law, a priority for former House Speaker Paul Renner, prohibits social media accounts for kids under 14 and requires parental permission for 14- and 15-year-olds to use platforms with “addictive features,” such as infinite scrolling and push notifications. The law passed the House 109-4 and the Senate 30-5.
‘Materially different’
Golembiewski argued kids could scroll on apps as long as they want under the law, if the apps don’t implement addictive features.
The target on addictive features makes Florida’s law “materially different” than other laws of similar nature due to its “focus on functionality,” Golembiewski insisted.
The associations representing the tech giants argued in a press release that the Florida law infringes on the First Amendment rights by creating barriers to online information that “every American, including minors, has a right to see.”
Murphy added in court that the features the state contests, like push notifications and personal interactive metrics, would be unreasonable to “divorce” from the apps.
Walker suggested the state has “a hard row to hoe” to prove the law does not implicate speech.
When DeSantis signed the law a year ago, he and Renner agreed that it does not address “good speech or bad speech” and predicted it would withstand judicial scrutiny.
Walker has not always agreed with the legality of DeSantis’ initiatives, particularly regarding the First Amendment.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Parental rights
The tech giants offered an argument the state often deploys: Parental rights.
CCIA and NetChoice insisted they support child safety and have no problem with parents preventing kids from using apps but do see it as an overreach that the law now requires an “opt-in” to use social media as opposed to an “opt-out” model for 14- and 15-year-olds.
“The Constitution instead leaves the power to decide what speech is appropriate for minors where it belongs: with their parents,” their attorneys wrote in their complaint for injunctive relief.
Murphy argued that some parents may not object if their child watches three hours of political coverage on YouTube and have the freedom to enforce social media use as they see fit.
Walker said a big question is whether the companies CCIA and NetChoice represent feel credible fear of enforcement of the law. Murphy replied that they do, citing press conference quotes, such as from Renner, as the Phoenix reported a year ago.
“If I said to you that a company was going to take children, use addiction that causes them harm for profit, what does that sound like? Sounds like trafficking to me,” Renner said during the bill signing in March 2024.
“And this digital trafficking is exactly what groups like NetChoice, that is the [industry] umbrella that will sue the day after this bill is signed, or the second after this is signed. But you know what? We’re going to beat ’em. We’re going to beat ’em, we’re never ever going to stop,” Renner continued at the time.
The law faces a separate lawsuit, also being heard by Walker, challenging the constitutionality of a feature of the law that requires age verification to access websites with adult content. That challenge is on pause, awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a similar case regarding a Texas law.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.