Should a state select which websites children can access online in the name of safety and protection, taking that decision out of parents’ hands? Florida’s HB3, a law that was marketed as addressing child safety, is such a proposal. Instead of ensuring safety, this law conflicts with the First Amendment rights of minors and their parents by functioning as a digital blockade. Since its proposal and passage, this law has undergone intense legal scrutiny and CCIA and NetChoice have sued to ensure it is permanently struck down by the courts.
Not only is this law not tailored to its purported purpose, the law also establishes certain speaker-based restrictions. By targeting specific “platforms” and features and stripping away parental autonomy, HB3 “rations” lawful speech. Tellingly, HB3 doesn’t apply to all digital content (such as Disney+ or Hulu) but specifically targets social media sites popular with young people. This effectively limits specific speakers and their audiences due to their preferred channel.
Further, the law completely prohibits those under 14 from creating accounts on the websites it covers and requires 14- and 15-year olds to obtain parental consent before creating accounts, which likewise restricts core First Amendment activity. And in an attempt to save HB3 from an adverse court decision, Florida created a default alternative whereby these minors would simply be banned, again in violation of the First Amendment.
CCIA isn’t an outlier in its concerns about HB3. In June of last year, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker, the Chief Judge for the Northern District of Florida, granted a preliminary injunction to block parts of the law from being implemented until he can hear the full legal challenge.
In his ruling, Judge Walker found that, even assuming Florida’s interest in safety, HB3’s “restrictions are an extraordinarily blunt instrument for furthering it.” And because the law “prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech” relative to its scope, he granted CCIA’s request to block it.
Judge Walker was right: HB3 violates the First Amendment because of the onerous restrictions it places on minors and adults accessing social media to view lawful content.
Protecting children is a universally shared goal, but it should be achieved through empowering parents with education and resources, not by “blocking and restricting” minors’ access to the internet. Many consumer-facing websites have long built considerable consensus around mitigating content- and conduct-related risks to minors. Most of the leading firms have committed to best practice standards for online safety, creating tools for both minors and guardians to use to keep them safe online. The process of keeping minors safe online is best conducted through education, safety-by-design, and appropriate and measured enforcement when necessary, not heavy-handed short-sighted laws.
HB3 isn’t just about social media, it’s about who decides what you and your children can see and do online. Florida’s HB3 attacks our First Amendment rights and replaces parental empowerment with government censorship, effectively “rationing” the internet and stripping families of their right to decide which lawful content is safe for their own children. If HB3 stands, the precedent for “internet-rationing” could allow similar legislation to spread to other states, and passage of those proposals could fundamentally alter the free access to protected speech and expression on the internet. For these reasons, the law should be struck down.
