DeSantis signs controversial bill banning kids under 14 from opening social media accounts

[Cellblock2429]

“With the state preparing for a legal challenge from the tech industry, Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a controversial bill aimed at keeping children off social-media platforms.

“You better believe, I am going to fight like hell to uphold this in court,” Attorney General Ashley Moody said during a bill-signing event in Jacksonville.

Lawmakers this month overwhelmingly passed the bill (HB 3), which House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, made a priority of the annual legislative session. The bill, in part, seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening social-media accounts on at least some platforms — though it would allow parents to give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts. Children under 14 could not open accounts.”

DeSantis signs controversial bill banning kids under 14 from opening social media accounts

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed a controversial bill that would restrict minors from opening social media accounts.

www.nbcmiami.com

Children should not have access to all social spaces.

/——/ Why aren’t gun grabbing laws ever called controversial?

 

[Moonglow]

As usual libs go too far

We had a Flotus who tried to dictate the diet of children and she failed miserbly

But if want to limit foods that can be purchased using food stamps we can do that since its the taxpayers money and beggars cant be choosers

Dictate, oh you mean offer a choice, yeah that never works.

 

[Mac-7]

Dictate, oh you mean offer a choice, yeah that never works.

She first tried the marxist approach of one size fits all

And didnt begin offering a choice till she had to

 

[22lcidw]

Dictate, oh you mean offer a choice, yeah that never works.

Michelle did not even know her own people. And you do not even realize it.

 

[Slade3200]

As usual libs go too far

We had a Flotus who tried to dictate the diet of children and she failed miserbly

But if want to limit foods that can be purchased using food stamps we can do that since its the taxpayers money and beggars cant be choosers

Too far is a good way to describe this Florida thing as well. Not that BS you said about not caring about kids if you don’t support it.

 

[Mac-7]

Too far is a good way to describe this Florida thing as well. Not that BS you said about not caring about kids if you don’t support it.

I strongly disagree

The unrestricted internet is a dangerous place for not fully developed young minds to be

 

[Slade3200]

I strongly disagree

The unrestricted internet is a dangerous place for not fully developed young minds to be

I agree. But not up to the government to regulate social sites unless they are exposing people to illegal content

 

[Captain Caveman]

“With the state preparing for a legal challenge from the tech industry, Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a controversial bill aimed at keeping children off social-media platforms.

“You better believe, I am going to fight like hell to uphold this in court,” Attorney General Ashley Moody said during a bill-signing event in Jacksonville.

Lawmakers this month overwhelmingly passed the bill (HB 3), which House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, made a priority of the annual legislative session. The bill, in part, seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening social-media accounts on at least some platforms — though it would allow parents to give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts. Children under 14 could not open accounts.”

DeSantis signs controversial bill banning kids under 14 from opening social media accounts

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed a controversial bill that would restrict minors from opening social media accounts.

www.nbcmiami.com

Children should not have access to all social spaces.

I thought you had to be over 13 for Facebook, but they can just declare any date of date when signing up

 

[Frankenstein]

More government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty – such is the authoritarian right.

Republicans enact yet another law motivated by fear, ignorance, bigotry, and hate.

Anyone against this, is for sexual predators!

 

[Frankenstein]

I wish the fucking fascist right would stay the living fuck out of peoples lives. I wish they gave a single fuck about individual rights and freedom as they whine about but that is just a crock of shit. They're only small government when it comes to helping people and giving a damn about people.

We do not want sexual predators using those platforms to target our kids, I understand why you are against it! MAYBE WHEN THE LEFT STARTS GIVING A DAMN ABOUT OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY WE WOULD LISTEN!

 

[Frankenstein]

Facebook, Twitter and Instagram all require users to be 13 to create an account anyway.

Without verification!

 

[Frankenstein]

Or parents are upset that the state wants to take over raising their children.

The State doesn't even want parents to know if their kids are trying to transition, are you kidding me!

 

[Mac-7]

I agree. But not up to the government to regulate social sites unless they are exposing people to illegal content

If libs agree with smoking and drinking bans for children then enabling porno is illogical

 

[beautress]

Since when is social media a method of parenting?

Free speech came before social media.

 

[Slade3200]

If libs agree with smoking and drinking bans for children then enabling porno is illogical

Agreed, what does that have to do with our conversation?

 

[Mac-7]

Agreed, what does that have to do with our conversation?

Its the same principle in all three cases

 

[Rogue AI]

I agree. But not up to the government to regulate social sites unless they are exposing people to illegal content

It is the place of the government to regulate contracts. Children are not allowed to enter into contracts anywhere else. Requiring parental consent is the very minimum that should be done. Restricting access to social media is no different.

 

[Road Runner]

Thats goofy lib logic for ya

Pedos gonna pedo, so why make it more difficult for them by taking away the internet approach?

First of all you already know that I'm not a lib as I have a freaking Trump advocation underneath my username and second of all I have said repeatedly that I don't agree with little kids being on the internet so I really don't know what I'm missing here.

Its protecting children who are too young to protect themselves either by prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors or internet social media access

So then you're comparing cigarettes to having a Facebook account? Umm... alrighty then.

I agree. But not up to the government to regulate social sites unless they are exposing people to illegal content

Exactly! They're just not getting it though.

Anyone against this, is for sexual predators!

Anyone against the law or anyone against children having social media accounts because there's a difference.

If libs agree with smoking and drinking bans for children then enabling porno is illogical

Its the same principle in all three cases

No it's not.

Requiring parental consent is the very minimum that should be done. Restricting access to social media is no different.

I agree, so what's the problem?

 

[Frankenstein]

First of all you already know that I'm not a lib as I have a freaking Trump advocation underneath my username and second of all I have said repeatedly that I don't agree with little kids being on the internet so I really don't know what I'm missing here.



So then you're comparing cigarettes to having a Facebook account? Umm... alrighty then.






Exactly! They're just not getting it though.




Anyone against the law or anyone against children having social media accounts because there's a difference.












No it's not.





I agree, so what's the problem?

Against the bill!

 

[Road Runner]

Against the bill!

I'm sorry but that's just plain ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. Why would I be for sexual predators when I would keep my own little kids off social media just because I'm against the government making that decision?