Report from MediaPost
In Brief – A three-judge panel of US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a district court decision that had sided with NetChoice, a digital company trade group, and imposed a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of a Florida law that prohibits social media platforms that have so-called “addictive features” from allowing anyone under age 14 to have an account and requires 14- and 15-year-olds to obtain parental consent to have an account. The divided panel ruled that although HB3 “implicates” the First Amendment, the statute is likely constitutional because it “promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation”, “tailors its provisions to the ages of the young minors whose access it does restrict,” and “simply prevents them from creating accounts on platforms that employ addictive features” rather than prohibits access to the platforms entirely. In his June order, District Judge Mark Walker had cited numerous court precedents backing his statement that “Youth have First Amendment rights,” and ruled that “the law’s restrictions are an extraordinarily blunt instrument for furthering” the state’s interests in protecting young people and therefore it likely violates teens’ free speech rights, a sentiment backed by dissenting Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum.
Context – Until mid-summer, most of the state laws regulating social media sites had been blocked by federal judges, generally for violating the First Amendment. But in August, the Supreme Court did not overrule a decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Apples to allow a Mississippi law to go into effect that requires social media platforms to prohibit teens from creating accounts without parental permission and protect minors from a range of “harmful material”. Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion at the time that gave a concise summary of why all the similar state laws have been blocked, and why he suspects Mississippi’s law eventually will be as well, citing major precedents on the free speech rights of minors. But the justices have been squirrely on internet cases, generally avoiding policy decisiveness, so who knows.