Utah law restricting youth social media use blocked by judge

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/utah-law-restricting-youth-social-media-use-blocked-by-judge-2024-09-11/

by JumpCrisscross • 2 years ago

23 18 2 years ago

reuters.com

unethical_ban• 2 years ago

How would a restriction on minor usage of social media impact the "free speech" of tech companies?

And don't we recognize limits on the free speech of children in certain settings?

itishappy2• 2 years ago

And don't we recognize limits on the free speech of children in certain settings?

We sure do. No "Bong hits 4 Jesus" at school-supervised events, for instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

itishappy2• 2 years ago

I find this Supreme Court case to have both an entertaining context and a quite relevant precedent:

Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick.

I'd appreciate it if any downvoters here wouldn't mind explaining their reasoning to me so that I may have a chance to address their concerns.

verdverm2• 2 years ago

From the injunction...

NetChoice’s argument is persuasive. As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute the Act implicates social media companies’ First Amendment rights. 87 The speech at issue in this case— the speech social media companies engage in when they make decisions about how to construct and operate their platforms—is protected speech. 88 The Supreme Court has long held that “[a]n entity ‘exercis[ing] editorial discretion in the selection and presentation’ of content is ‘engage[d] in speech activity’” protected by the First Amendment.89 And this July, in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the Court affirmed these First Amendment principles “do not go on leave when social media are involved.” 90 Indeed, the Court reasoned that in “making millions of . . . decisions each day” about “what third-party speech to display and how to display it,” social media companies “produce their own distinctive compilations of expression.”91 Regarding the more pressing question—whether the Act facially violates social media companies’ First Amendment rights—the probable answer is “yes.” As explained below,

klingoff• 2 years ago

I'm not sure why Larry Flint had so many legal fights with a state that believes any kind of business has a first amendment right for interactions with children.

Eumenes• 2 years ago

imo, algorithms/ranking/recommendation systems aren't "editorial decisions". They are automated and abstractions that should not equal or compare to an individuals free speech. Ya, I know, they're designed by humans. Social media companies need some serious lawfare.

ein0p3• 2 years ago

That is unfortunate. We have already ruined a generation of kids. There’s no need to continue stepping on the same rake. Kids already don’t have “freedom of speech”, and neither do companies when working with kids.

SllX3• 2 years ago

Kids do have the same First Amendment protections you or I do. What they don’t have is much political or financial power to protect it, so it only really gets asserted when parents assert it for them, and it does get balanced against institutional interests (“disrupting class”).

See: West Virginia vs Barnette: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/west-virginia-v.-barnett...

And: Mahanoy Area School District vs B.L.: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/23/supreme-court-snapc...

Companies also just don’t automatically lose their constitutional protections either simply because they’re working with a specific class of society.

agensaequivocum• 2 years ago

Awesome, an AR-15 for all children.

paulddraper• 2 years ago

The rights of children to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

stevenicr• 2 years ago

Since this is HN, my first thought about your statement "We have already ruined a generation"

was that is implying "We" as in "Tech Companies" or whatnot..

but the statement may be more accurate to imply We as in 'Parents'

I'm still not sure what exactly that was meaning in so far as who 'We' is/were supposed to be.

ein0p3• 2 years ago

Phones and other devices are basically a requirement from elementary school onwards. As a parent you can’t do anything about that. Contrary to popular belief children don’t just do what you tell them to do. They get addicted to this shit and spend hours every day watching bullshit on YouTube. When they’re little that’s solvable. But when a laptop is required for homework and school, you’ve lost the game.

tengbretson• 2 years ago

So they're alleging that this law imposed a restriction on the speech of social media companies? Sounds like a tacit admission that these companies consider the content posted and displayed on these platforms to be their own speech.

Can't wait for them to be held liable for all the things they have said.

Utah law restricting youth social media use blocked by judge

Related Stories