Alabama House bills would limit social media access for minors
A group of people holding cell phones. An Alabama House committee Wednesday approved legislation that would limit access to social media by minors. (Daniel de)
A House committee heard opposition and support for two bills that would limit access to social media for minors at a public hearing on Wednesday.
HB 235, sponsored by Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook, bans children 16 and younger from owning a social media account. HB 276, sponsored by Rep. Ben Robbins, R-Sylacauga, would expand limitations and parental controls to 18-year-olds.
Robbins said his initial intent was to pass the social media restrictions with his bill that put age restrictions and verification procedures for adult websites from last year's session.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'But I knew the tough nut to crack that social media would be, so I said, 'Take first one bite at it through pornography, and the next session, once that got passed, then go and work on the social media issue,'' Robbins said.
Faulkner's bill bans anyone 16 years or younger from creating social media accounts. It also includes parental supervision of an account that a parent can make for a child. Currently, federal law sets the social media age limit to 12 years old, Faulkner said.
'So that if you went to a social media site, and if you were not the age of 16, you couldn't open that account,' Faulkner said.
Amy Bos, director of state and federal affairs for NetChoice, opposed both bills, citing concerns over free speech and privacy. She said that all Alabamians would have to share official identification under the legislation to prove that they are not minors.
'While the bill intends to protect minors, it could create more harm by exposing them to security threats,' Bos told the House Child and Senior Advocacy Committee. 'And let's keep in mind this isn't just about kids. Adults, too, would have to show either government ID some sort of verifying who they say that they are.'
Rep. Barbara Drummond, D-Mobile, was supportive of both bills, and expressed concern of cyberbullying and wanted to hold parents accountable for minors on social media.
'We see so much violence that is on social media, from bullying and so forth, and it can lead to so many other bad consequences for other innocent children,' Drummond said.
Bos suggested that the Legislature focus more on improving online literacy rather than outright banning social media for minors and creating privacy and free speech issues.
'Rather than heavy handed mandates, we do recommend that Alabama focus on improving online literacy programs, as states like Florida and Virginia have done,' she said. 'Educating students and parents about how to safely use social media is a more effective approach than imposing age verification schemes that are likely to face legal challenges and put user privacy at risk.'
Florida and Virginia have passed laws that require a social media literacy course be taught in schools. Robins said he is supportive of that, but his bill does not mandate the State Department of Education to create the course in order to maintain focus on core classes like reading and math.
'So I do agree that children need to learn it, because social media is a reality, and learning how to use LinkedIn and learning how to find jobs is the reality, but learning that maybe you shouldn't communicate with this adult online,' Robbins said.
Part of Robbins' bill would prevent minors with social media from communicating with adult accounts they are not following.
'Parents would have full access to the account, and a minor cannot receive messages from an adult, so unless they are already friends with that person,' Robbins said.
Another opponent, Knox Argo, requested that both bills exempt video games from the ban and make the definition of social media more clear.
'We want to exempt video games,' Argo said. 'Like all these statues that have been passed have done that, the definition in the Alabama bill is kind of vague.'
Committee Chair Ginny Shaver, R-Leesburg, said the committee would not vote on the bills because of the public hearing, but did not say when the committee would bring them up again.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Begich joins U.S. House Republicans in voting to claw back public broadcasting money
Rep. Nick Begich III, R-Alaska, speaks to the Alaska Legislature on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025. At background are Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak (left) and Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham (right). (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) Rep. Nick Begich, R-Alaska, joined congressional Republicans in a 214-212 vote Thursday to claw back $1.1 billion in previously approved federal funding for public broadcasting, including tens of millions of dollars intended for radio and TV stations in Alaska. The clawback, formally known as a rescission vote, was requested by President Donald Trump and does not take effect unless also approved by the U.S. Senate within 45 days. The rescission would be enormously significant for Alaska's public broadcasters, particularly those in rural Alaska. High Country News has reported that many of Alaska's rural public radio stations are heavily dependent upon funding from the federal government. A rescission would be even more significant than a budget cut, because it would instantly affect funding that has already been approved and included in local budgets. If Congress were to cut budgets going forward, stations might have at least some time to adapt. Stations on St. Paul Island, in Unalakleet, Sand Point and Talkeetna are among those that receive more than 70% of their funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the federally funded agency targeted by Thursday's vote. Stations in Sitka, Ketchikan, Petersburg and Haines are among those that receive at least a third of their support from the CPB. At KUCB-FM in Unalaska, the station would instantly lose nearly half of its funding and would have to eliminate original programming. The same would take place at KYUK-FM in Bethel, which stands to lose almost 70% of its revenue. On June 6, Alaska Public Media published a listing of knock-on effects, including the loss of the only local reporters in many rural parts of the state. Even in the state's urban centers, the funding loss would have devastating effects. KNBA-FM in Anchorage could have to stop production of National Native News and Native America Calling, two nationally syndicated programs that broadcast Alaska Native and American Indian news. In Juneau, the loss of funding would affect Gavel Alaska, the public broadcasts that cover legislative hearings in the state Capitol and elsewhere. Begich, in a written statement, said the rescissions package is 'a necessary step for restoring fiscal responsibility in our nation.' During his election campaign last year, Alaska's lone member of the U.S. House of Representatives said reducing the national deficit was a priority. He recently voted for a bill that increases the national debt by an estimated $2.4 trillion. In Thursday's statement, Begich said that 'while rural communities have in the past been indirectly supported through state-sponsored media, we must acknowledge how far we have come in terms of connectivity since the birth of radio more than 120 years ago. Alaskan residents have embraced today's pervasive cellular, satellite, and wireline technologies, connecting rural communities to critical information and resources in rich and compelling ways. Importantly, however, emergency management funding from these budgets that is directed to rural communities has been preserved.' In addition to the impact on public broadcasters, the rescissions package eliminates billions of dollars in foreign aid. 'This rescissions package primarily targets ideologically-shaped foreign spending at USAID. Under both the Obama and Biden Administrations, USAID funding was misused to promote political and socially left policies abroad. This package helps refocus our support in ways that are consistent with America's core values, rather than promote the agendas of international bureaucracies and ideological NGOs,' Begich wrote. 'America has been built on principles of freedom of expression, self-determination, sovereignty, personal responsibility, and limited government. This package supports those values by rescinding $9.4 billion from programs that do not reflect the will of the taxpaying public,' his statement said. A poll commissioned by PBS earlier this year found that 65% of the public believes the public broadcaster is either adequately funded or underfunded. In the Senate, a simple majority vote will be needed to approve the rescissions package. Republicans occupy 53 seats in that chamber and Vice President J.D. Vance would cast any tiebreaking vote, meaning that four Republicans would have to oppose the funding reduction for it to fail. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has said she supports funding public broadcasting. U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, while critical of NPR, has supported public broadcasting, particularly in rural Alaska. Trump has said that the rescissions request is the first of several that the White House budget office plans to submit. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House appropriators OK rebukes to recent DOD scandals in budget bill
House Republican appropriators agreed Thursday to several checks on recent controversial Pentagon moves in their $832 billion defense budget plan for fiscal 2026, including a ban on using any money for military personnel to conduct law enforcement duties on U.S. soil. But the spending plan still drew significant criticism from Democratic lawmakers who objected to restrictions on abortion care for troops, insufficient funds to support Ukraine and missing budget justifications from the administration on how hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent. The funding bill — which heads to the full chamber for consideration later this summer — includes a 3.8% pay raise for troops in 2026 and plans to trim 45,000 civilian employees from the department's workforce in a cost-cutting move. Administration officials have billed it as the first $1 trillion defense budget, pairing the appropriations request with an expected $150 billion funding boost for military programs in the Republican-backed reconciliation package winding through Congress. Without that money, the defense budget would see no increase from fiscal 2025 levels. House panel pushes ahead $453 billion funding plan for VA next year In a statement Thursday, Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., chairman of the appropriations committee's defense panel, praised the funding plan as 'investing significantly in modernization of the force, maintaining U.S. maritime and air dominance, fostering both innovation and the production capacity it relies upon, air and missile defense, and support for service members and their families.' But he also acknowledged Democratic complaints about incomplete funding requests from the administration, and said he hopes those information gaps will be filled in coming weeks. The committee approved the bill largely along party lines (only one Democrat, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, voted for it) after more than eight hours of debate and delays, with numerous Democratic amendments rejected by the GOP majority. But Republicans did go along with several provisions touching on recent department controversies. Language offered by Rep. Mike Levin, D-Calif., and approved by the committee would block the use of funds to skirt the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of military personnel for civilian law enforcement. The provision came in response to the Trump administration's recent decision to deploy National Guard troops and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles to help with immigration enforcement efforts, over the objections of city and state officials. Calvert and other Republicans backed the measure without offering any direct criticism of President Donald Trump's decision. The committee also approved a Democratic-led amendment to block defense officials from sharing classified information on unsecured networks, a measure aimed at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of the privately-owned Signal app earlier this year to discuss overseas airstrikes with senior administration leaders. And the legislation calls for a full accounting of money spent on the Army' 250th anniversary celebrations, scheduled for this weekend. The event — which coincides with Trump's 79th birthday — has seen its size and scope balloon by tens of millions of dollars as White House officials have mandated a larger and larger celebration. Other Democratic-led proposals on restricting Trump's use of a Qatari plane as the new Air Force One, blocking the renaming of Navy ships and returning to previous policies allowing travel stipends to help pay for abortion-related care were all rejected. Republicans also included language in the final bill which would block any diversity and inclusion programming at the Defense Department and severely limit health care options for transgender troops or family members, both priorities of the administration. Earlier this week, Senate Republicans expressed stronger concerns about the missing budget information, but said they hope to move soon on their own version of the defense spending package. Both chambers will have to adopt their own drafts of the appropriations measures before negotiating a final budget compromise to be sent to the president to become law.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Assault on Good-for-You TV: C-SPAN and PBS Teeter as Trump Attacks
When money flowed more freely in television, public-service programming was seen as a means of giving back. From educational TV and supporting public broadcasting to cable operators providing C-SPAN, spaces existed where ratings weren't the yardstick — instead, this was TV intended to be good for you. On Thursday, Congress took a major step toward undermining all of that, as the House narrowly approved a rescission bill that would claw back $1.1 billion in funding to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which helps support PBS stations, in addition to cuts to other programs. The bill passed by the slimmest of margins, 214 to 212, with a few GOP legislators switching their votes to get it through. The funding was part of a larger $9.4 billion allocation that lawmakers had already approved for foreign aid and public broadcasting. Senate still has to weigh in on the matter, and has five weeks to decide. With PBS and NPR besieged by the political right, with C-SPAN's funding via cable and satellite fees strafed by cord cutting, higher-minded alternatives have been hit by hard times. The whole point of PBS and National Public Radio was that they would be unfettered by commercial demands, allowing them to offer programming — from children's programming like Mr. Rogers and 'Sesame Street,' devoid of toy commercials, to lower-key news, documentaries and public affairs — that didn't have to justify its existence on a balance sheet. Ditto for C-SPAN, which cable operators carried for a small licensing fee simply because of the perceived value in allowing subscribers to see what their elected representatives were doing and saying, unfiltered and unedited. Public broadcasting has found itself swept up in the Trump administration's war against the media, with the perception that any unflattering reporting about the president — whether from PBS' 'NewsHour' or 'Frontline' or NPR's 'All Things Considered' — reveals 'invidious' bias and a liberal agenda, to use FCC chairman Brendan Carr's favorite word. Conservatives have long argued that public broadcasting represents an unnecessary expense given the abundance of choices available to most consumers. But in its latest incarnation, 'Defund PBS' overtly translates into being less about fiscal responsibility than leveraging the government's underwriting role to silence otherwise-independent media voices by labeling them progressive propaganda. On the left, the response was unambiguous. The Writers Guild of America East (WGAE) condemned the House vote as 'a radical right-wing ideology that aims to destroy a non-partisan public service despite all evidence of its wide benefits.' The group quickly turned its attention to pleading with the Senate, which holds a GOP majority but has exhibited a bit more restraint than the House in prosecuting the MAGA agenda. The CEO of PBS, Paula Kerger, remained silent in the wake of Thursday's vote, but she has been lobbying intensively to save PBS, warning that Trump's push to defund public broadcasters would spell the end for a number of local stations, and the service they provide to their communities. In a recent interview with Katie Couric, Kerger contemplated the end of public funding for the network, which only relies on the government for a portion of its funds. 'I think we'll figure out a way, through digital, to make sure there is some PBS content,' she said. 'But there won't be anyone in the community creating local content. There won't be a place for people to come together.' Kerger was referring to the fact that the campaign against PBS and NPR disproportionally harms smaller and more rural communities that voted for Trump (even if many listeners and viewers didn't), which lack the same menu of local-media options as major markets. In a sense, Sesame Workshop — the entity behind 'Sesame Street' — has provided an unlikely poster child for the financial pressures on public TV, having undergone layoffs before losing its streaming deal with Warner Bros. Discovery's Max. Netflix has since stepped into the breach, joining with PBS Kids in providing access Elmo and his pals. As for C-SPAN, its challenges stem primarily from evolving technology, which has dramatically undercut the financial model upon which the network was founded in 1979. With viewers shifting to streaming and dropping cable and satellite subscriptions, the number of homes receiving C-SPAN has sharply dropped to a little over 50 million, meaning the nonprofit enterprise — which costs operators just $7.25 a month, a fraction of what they pay for channels like Fox News and CNN — is running at a significant deficit. One proposed solution would be for entities with streaming subscribers, like YouTube or Hulu's live-TV package, to carry C-SPAN. Indeed, YouTube's 8 to 10 million subscribers alone would provide enough income to offset most of the shortfall in its roughly $60 million annual operating expenses. Thus far, however, those companies have balked, prompting a rare bipartisan push in the Senate on C-SPAN's behalf, with Republican Chuck Grassley and Democrat Amy Klobuchar among those joining in a resolution calling upon streaming services to carry the network. 'For tens of millions of Americans who have cut the cord and get their content from streaming services, they should not be cut off from the civic content made available by C-SPAN,' the senators stated. It's a welcome development for C-SPAN CEO Sam Feist, who joined the network a little over a year ago from CNN. Feist noted that 'cord cutting' doesn't accurately characterize what's transpired — since old cable subscribers have generally moved to new delivery systems — meaning the case for carrying the network remains as simple as the public-service ideal that inspired its launch. 'We're the only network that provides what we provide, which is this unfiltered view of American government,' Feist told TheWrap, adding in regard to the streamers, 'It is good for the country for their customers to have access to our product.' The campaign regarding C-SPAN carriage has seemingly gained some momentum over the last year, with former Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler and the Washington Post's Karen Tumulty among those joining the aforementioned senators in taking up the cause. Wheeler called YouTube's decision not to carry C-SPAN 'baffling and anti-democratic,' writing in The Hill that the company is depriving viewers of 'an unfiltered window into the goings-on in Congress, the White House and other parts of the government.' As Sen. Ron Wyden told Tumulty, carrying the network would only cost YouTube about $6 million a year — 'crumbs,' he suggested, for a streamer that rakes in billions in ad revenue. YouTube has stated that its subscribers 'have not shown sufficient interest in adding C-SPAN to the YouTube TV lineup to justify the increased cost' to their monthly bills, although as Wyden noted, that would amount to a relative pittance of 87 cents a year per household. The two situations aren't completely analogous, especially with the fate of PBS and NPR having become embroiled in politics, as opposed to corporate stubbornness. More fundamentally, though, both situations speak to the question of civic responsibility, and whether the government and private interests acknowledge such obligations. Because even if C-SPAN and PBS reach smaller audiences in a fragmented world, certain things are worth keeping around not because everybody watches them, but rather for what they offer, symbolically as well as tangibly, thanks to the staid sobriety they provide by being available to the people that do. The post The Assault on Good-for-You TV: C-SPAN and PBS Teeter as Trump Attacks appeared first on TheWrap.
