The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice, two leading tech industry trade groups, have filed a lawsuit challenging a Florida law banning young teens from accessing to social media. Their complaint, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, cites First Amendment concerns about Florida. Parliamentary Bill 3which the groups also describe as an imposition of parental rights.

“Florida House Bill 3 is the latest attempt in a long line of government efforts to restrict new forms of constitutionally protected expression, based on concerns about their potential effects on minors” , he declared. complaint opens. “Books, movies, television, rock music, video games and the Internet have all been accused in the past of posing risks to minors. Today, similar debates rage over media sites social.”

“These debates are important, and the government can certainly participate in them,” continue the technology groups. “But the First Amendment does not appreciate government efforts to address these problems. The Constitution instead leaves the power to decide what speech is appropriate for minors where it belongs: with their parents.”

“Like adults, minors use these websites to engage in a variety of First Amendment activities.”

Signed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) last March, HB3 requires social media platforms to categorically reject the accounts of anyone under the age of 14 (or anyone the company suspects is under of 14 years) and to ban accounts of 14 and 15 years of age. -former users unless they obtain parental permission. The law also requires websites and apps to verify the age of all visitors if the platform posts material “harmful to minors” – a category broadly defined to include all kinds of content that depicts or describes sexual behavior , “appeal to prurient interest.” and is considered by the state to lack “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” for persons under the age of 18. “While the bill does not specify how exactly social media sites should verify a customer’s age, with equally harsh consequences for violations Under the law, it is likely that businesses will ask their clients to hand over their government-issued ID, submit to a facial scan, or otherwise transmit sensitive information,” note Reason‘s Emma Camp earlier this year.

The new NetChoice and CCIA lawsuit challenges Section 1 of HB3, the part relating to teens and social media.

Opponents of such measures often argue that they are a privacy nightmare, creating a trove of personal information vulnerable to hackers and infringing on the rights of adults in the name of protecting children. All this is true, but it is also true that children have first amendment rightsAlso.

We should also oppose laws like HB3 because they infringe on children’s right to free speech.

This is an argument that CCIA and NetChoice use in their complaint:

Like adults, minors use these websites to engage in a range of First Amendment activities on a wide range of topics. Minors use online services to read the news, connect with friends, explore new interests, follow their favorite sports teams, and search for their dream college. Some use online services to hone a new skill or showcase their creative talents, including photography, writing or other forms of expression. Others use them to raise awareness of social causes and to participate in public debates on current issues. Still others use them to build communities and connect with others who share similar interests or experiences, which is particularly helpful for minors who feel isolated or marginalized at home, or who seek support from others. other people who understand their experiences.

Reasonable people can have differing opinions about what types of platforms are appropriate for minors and at what ages, the complaint suggests — and that’s precisely why such decisions are best. left in place to parents. There are myriad tools available for parents to monitor and limit their own children’s online activities, and these can serve to protect children in a less “draconian” way than verification rules do. of age and general prohibitions.

“In short, in a nation that values ​​the First Amendment, the government’s preferred response is to let parents decide what speech is appropriate for their minor children, including using tools that make it easier for them to restrict access they choose to do so,” say the CCIA and NetChoice.

“Encumbering protected speech that citizens find particularly interesting is particularly inconsistent with the First Amendment.”

It’s not just the violation of minors’ First Amendment rights and parental decision-making that the CCIA and NetChoice object to in their complaint. He also criticizes the odd parameters of HB3, which only covers social media platforms where 1) 10% or more of daily active users under the age of 16 spend an average of two hours per day or more on the platform on days they use it, and 2) personalized recommendation algorithms and features that the law defines as “addictive features” (things like infinite scrolling, push notifications, autoplay features, live streaming features and “personal interactive metrics”) are present. The law specifically excludes services dedicated solely to email or direct messaging.

The groups emphasize that the first section of HB3 “does not focus on particular content that may pose a particular risk to minors, nor does it focus on identifying specific means or forums of communication that seek to take advantage of minors were found to be more likely to use. Instead, it focuses on the extent to which minors appear to like a particular platform and “whether it uses tools designed to draw their attention to content they might like.”

“With this measure, the state could restrict access to the most popular segments of almost all constitutionally protected speech media, whether it be tantalizing video games, page-turning novels or binge-worthy TV shows,” the groups suggest. “Encumbering protected speech that citizens find particularly interesting is particularly inconsistent with the First Amendment.”

Implementing HB3 also presents practical problems, the groups point out. The law lists some general parameters for how platforms are supposed to determine who a child’s parent or guardian is, but these seem both toothless and completely invasive.

Similar laws and challenges are numerous

Lawsuits against social media age verification rules in other states, including Utah And Tennessee-are currently in progress. And a number of these laws have already been rejected by federal judges.

Likewise, lawsuits challenging age verification rules for adult websites are proliferating.

Multiple states have adopted requirements similar to Florida’s rule regarding online sexual content. So far, federal courts have been pretty good at reviewing these cases for the unconstitutional mess they represent. This includes cases outside California, Arkansas, Texas, Indiana and Mississippi– however, in the Texas case, an appeals court overturned the lower court’s injunction against an age verification warrant and, in April, the United States Supreme Court refused suspend the decision of the court of appeal. But in July, SCOTUS said it would take up the case in its entirety during the term that began this month.

Laws requiring age verification for adult sites have become popular among some Republicans, including those behind Bill 2025, who see them as a backdoor to ban porn. In many states with age verification laws for adult content, the main porn platforms blocked viewers of these states rather than complying with the burden of verifying identification documents.

More sex and tech news

• Using tracking technology to collect data about website visitors does not count as illegal wiretappingthe highest court in Massachusetts detained. As for the state’s wiretap law, which prohibits the interception of “electronic and oral communications,” the judges could not “conclude with certainty that the legislature intended the ‘communication’ to extend so widely that it criminalizes the interception of web browsing and other similar interactions. ” they wrote.

• A federal judge extended a temporary restraining order against Florida officials who threaten TV stations that air an ad promoting a reproductive freedom ballot initiative up for a vote this year. (More information on the case, from Reason, here.)

• The family of a teenager who committed suicide files a complaint against an AI chatbot who they believe encouraged him to commit suicide.

• “Part of mastering the Internet is recognizing that what an algorithm presents to you is only a suggestion and is not entirely handing over your brain to the algorithm,” writes Mike Masnick. in a Technical dirt piece ridicule yet another New York Times article inaccurately describing Section 230. “If the problem is that people are outsourcing their brains to the algorithm, it won’t be solved by banning algorithms or adding accountability to them.” Masnick goes on to explain why algorithmic recommendations are – and certainly should be – protected by the First Amendment.

Today’s picture