Federal judge blocks enforcement of law barring kids from social media
A federal judge blocked on Tuesday the state's enforcement of a 2024 state law requiring social media platforms to delete accounts of kids 15 years old and younger.
The preliminary victory for the two trade associations representing social media giants comes after U.S. District Judge Mark Walker had dismissed the suit in March because the companies had not proven they would be affected. However, Walker barred the state from enforcing the law on Tuesday (HB 3), writing that it stifled minors' First Amendment rights and that there were other avenues to combat mental health concerns associated with the use of social media.
'Assuming the significance of the State's interest in limiting the exposure of youth to websites with 'addictive features,' the law's restrictions are an extraordinarily blunt instrument for furthering it,' Walker wrote.
NetChoice and Computer & Communications Industry Association, representing companies including Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube, filed the suit against the law in October and the former Attorney General Ashley Moody had agreed not to enforce it while the parties waited for a decision from Walker on whether to temporarily block it or allow fines of up to $50,000 per violation.
The attorney general's office will appeal Walker's block to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, said Jeremy Redfern, the attorney general's director of communications, in an email to Florida Phoenix.
'Florida parents voted through their elected representatives for a law protecting kids from the harmful and sometimes lifelong tragic impacts of social media,' Redfern wrote. 'These platforms do not have a constitutional right to addict kids to their products.'
Walker disagreed with the state's argument that parental control features weren't enough to protect kids from addictive features and that the law only prohibits kids from having accounts and doesn't restrict access to the content altogether.
'While it is true that at least one of these platforms, YouTube, does not require users to be account holders to passively view some content, all require users to hold accounts in order to share one's own content—in other words, to speak,' Walker wrote.
CCI's president and CEO, Matt Schruers, celebrated the ruling.
'This ruling vindicates our argument that Florida's statute violates the First Amendment by blocking and restricting minors—and likely adults as well—from using certain websites to view lawful content,' he wrote in a press release.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'We'll be vindicated': DeSantis says state will appeal judge's ruling in book ban lawsuit
Gov. Ron DeSantis says he anticipates his administration will be "vindicated" in an appeal to a federal judge's ruling last week calling part of the law used to take classic and modern books away from school libraries unconstitutional. At a Aug. 19 press conference in St. Cloud, DeSantis said the state plans to appeal U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza's ruling. Mendoza, of the Middle District of Florida, struck down a portion of HB 1069 the week prior, which prevents books that "describe sexual conduct" from being in public schools. "We will be vindicated in this," DeSantis said. The judge wrote that it's "unclear what the statute actually prohibits." Since DeSantis signed the measure into law in 2023, it's been used to sweep thousands of books off Florida's school library shelves. But responding to a reporter's question about the state's next steps in this lawsuit, DeSantis said that his administration aims to empower parents to have a say in school materials that align with state standards. "Are we really going to keep doing this? You know, we're here to do math and reading and science, we're not here to inject gender theory," DeSantis said. "That's just not appropriate in the schools. We obviously have a right to insist on those standards." In the federal judge's order, Mendoza drew concern with removal of contemporary classics like "The Handmaid's Tale," which was among 23 books removed from Orange County and Volusia County schools. Federal judge's ruling: Florida book ban law partly struck down in federal free speech case For years, the DeSantis administration has defended book removals using the "government speech" doctrine, which says the government has the right to promote its own views without a requirement to provide a platform for opposing views. Yet the judge's order affirmed a win for Penguin Random House and five other publishers, the Authors Guild, two parents and five authors. Jason Muehlhoff, who represents the State Board of Education, wrote in an email Aug. 14 to the USA TODAY NETWORK – Florida that the order was a "bad decision." Muehlhoff, who is the chief deputy solicitor general in Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier's office, has said the state plans to appeal. This order didn't cast down all parts of the Florida law, which also restricts teachers from using preferred pronouns in schools outside their assigned sex at birth. The same day as Mendoza's ruling, another federal judge in Florida agreed that the same law discriminated based on sex. This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: DeSantis defends Florida law after judge's ruling in book ban lawsuit Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Texas classrooms won't have to display the Ten Commandments — for now
In news that's being hailed as a win for religious freedom advocates — but also has major implications for public school parents — the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday halting the state's enactment of legislation that requires all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. Texas Senate Bill 10 was slated to take effect September 1, but U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery has temporarily blocked the law, citing the likelihood of it infringing upon the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. While the Establishment clause bars the government from forcing a specific religious doctrine on the public, the Free Exercise clause safeguards individuals' rights to observe their religious faith free of government influence. In Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, Judge Biery ruled that SB 10 could cause students to experience unconstitutional religious coercion and violate their parents' rights to guide their religious instruction. Displays of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, he stated, 'are likely to pressure the child-Plaintiffs into religious observance, meditation on, veneration, and adoption of the State's favored religious scripture, and into suppressing expression of their own religious or nonreligious background and beliefs while at school.' Rabbi Mara Nathan, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement that, as both a faith leader and public school parent, she welcomed the ruling. 'Children's religious beliefs should be instilled by parents and faith communities, not politicians and public schools,' she said. The plaintiffs in the case are public school parents from Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Unitarian Universalist and nonreligious backgrounds. The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the national ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation represented the families, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP participating as pro bono counsel. 'Today's decision will ensure that Texas families — not politicians or public-school officials — get to decide how and when their children engage with religion,' said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of the nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a statement. 'It sends a strong and resounding message across the country that the government respects the religious freedom of every student in our public schools.' Religious freedom advocates have argued that blurring the lines between church-state separation in public schools not only marginalizes students from religious minority groups but may also send harmful messages to girls and students of color. The 10th commandment states, for example: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.' This scripture alone could be viewed as framing women as solely the property of others, no different from livestock, be they wives or servants. The Bible has also been used to justify enslavement, which the final commandment also alludes to — an ideological argument that could cause psychological or emotional harm to students whose ancestors were enslaved. More broadly, biblical scriptures that take aim at fornication and same-sex relations have been criticized for instilling shame in youth and adults who have sex before marriage or are LGBTQ+. 'Public schools are not Sunday schools,' said Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, in a statement. 'Today's decision ensures that our clients' schools will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed and can learn without worrying that they do not live up to the state's preferred religious beliefs.' Texas is not alone in its failed bid to display the Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms. In November, a federal judge blocked Louisiana's attempt to blur church-state separation in this way. In June, a group of Maryland parents on the opposite side of the political spectrum emerged victorious when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they could object to LGBTQ+ picture books in their children's classrooms on religious grounds. The ruling has sparked fears that parents will cite their religious beliefs to wield more power over the public school curriculum nationwide. The post Texas classrooms won't have to display the Ten Commandments — for now appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
West Texas A&M University's drag show ban blocked by appeals court
West Texas A&M University's drag show ban has finally been blocked by an appeals court after a two years-long legal battle. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned a district court ruling on Monday, finding that university president Walter Wendler's unilateral cancellation of a campus drag show hosted by LGBTQ+ student organization Spectrum WT to raise money for suicide prevention was unconstitutional. 'Because theatrical performances plainly involve expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment, we find the plaintiffs' drag show is protected expression, discrimination among such shows must pass strict scrutiny," the court wrote in its opinion. "President Wendler did not argue, either before the district court or on appeal, that restricting the intended drag show would survive strict scrutiny. Based on the record before us, the district court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim." Wendler single-handedly made the decision to cancel the event, which was originally scheduled at an on-campus facility on March 22, 2023, announcing in an email to students and staff that 'West Texas A&M University will not host a drag show on campus.' In the message, which contained the subject line 'A Harmless Drag Show? No Such Thing," Wendler stated that humans are 'created in the image of God" and that drag shows supposedly do not 'preserve a single thread of human dignity." 'As a performance exaggerating aspects of womanhood (sexuality, femininity, gender), drag shows stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood," he wrote. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Spectrum WT against Wendler and the university, accusing them of violating their freedom of speech. The case escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court, which opted not to intervene in March of last year, leaving in place the district court's ruling that effectively upheld the ban. The appeals court ruling overturns this, allowing for future events to take place. 'FIRE is pleased that the Fifth Circuit has halted President Wendler's unconstitutional censorship and restored the First Amendment at West Texas A&M,' FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney, JT Morris, said in a statement. 'This is a victory not just for Spectrum WT, but for any public university students at risk of being silenced by campus censors.' This article originally appeared on Advocate: West Texas A&M University's drag show ban blocked by appeals court RELATED Texas legislature passes 'Don't Say Gay' law that bans LGBTQ+ student clubs A Texas university president banned drag and compared it to blackface. Students are taking the case to the Supreme Court Republican lawmaker gloats after Texas university kills LGBTQ+ studies program Solve the daily Crossword
