Posted on 04/04/2024 6:35:11 AM PDT by Phoenix8
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill on Monday that will prohibit children younger than 14 from joining social media in the state. Those who are 14 or 15 will need a parent’s consent before they join a platform.
The bill, HB3, also directs social media companies to delete the existing accounts of those who are under 14. Companies that fail to do so could be sued on behalf of the child who creates an account on the platform. The minor could be awarded up to $10,000 in damages, according to the bill. Companies found to be in violation of the law would also be liable for up to $50,000 per violation, as well as attorney’s fees and court costs.
“Ultimately, [we’re] trying to help parents navigate this very difficult terrain that we have now with raising kids, and so I appreciate the work that’s been put in,” DeSantis said in remarks during the bill-signing ceremony.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
You can legislate the age to drink, vote, drive, marry. Why is this different?
“You can legislate the age to drink, vote, drive, marry. Why is this different?”
Good points-—However, Voting is not a moral issue and neither is driving. However, all (but voting) are an issue between parents and children. For example, in PA, it’s illegal for me to let my son have a sip of wine while out at a restaurant with me. Laws like this do nothing-—They do not make me or my child more “moral”and take away the role of the parent and replace it with “government” edicts. But anyway, this has been beat to death and sorry it got off topic.
Speaking is also a form of behavior and saying the wrong thing is also a form of misbehaving or being immoral. Most people, however, would point to the first amendment. Not sure how restricting social media as it is currently used does not grossly infringe on someones right to free speech. Do you not see that as a conflict in any way?
You cant legislate someone into being moral but you can make being immoral unaccepted by society. Not sure we’ll all like where this leads though.
It’s not the government’s job to raise kids. Remember Hillary’s “It Take a Village” book. It doesn’t take a village, nor the government. It’s the responsibility of the parents to be in control of their children’s lives, and teach them properly. This is an over-reaching move, and will be no doubt, heavily challenged in court.
Amen.
You're argument is the stupid one, because in most Democrat-run cities and States, those laws are no longer enforced, or are you not aware of that?
From Chicago:
I’m much more aware than you are ...
Yes, the laws against murder, rape, and robbery are indeed no longer being enforced in Chicongo, etc. Repeal them. You can’t legislate morality.
They’ve already been basically repealed in those Democrat-run shitholes, because they’re not being enforced. That was the point of my comment.
Good, which will likely last at long as the first liberal judge imagines the Founders would never support this - if he/she even cares.
ROFL!!! See? You CAN legislate morality!
This is a good thing. It’s hard to believe lots of folks here disagree. And this is why this nation is doomed. Even the small subset of politically active citizens who comprise FR, who know right from wrong and truth from fiction, can’t agree on something so basic.
What is really needed and should have been implemented from the start is parental control and monitoring (mandated by federal law) on all minor accounts online and on cell/smartphones.
Our nation’s youth have been irreparably harmed by the Internet and smartphones due to porn, abuse, bullying, etc. It’s even worse than public education brainwashing and the entertainment industry (when considered separately).
Indeed, but since parents and schools are increasingly liberal then government should forbid certain things to protect the vulnerable. If adult web sites are off-limits, why not requires parental consent for FB etc.? Yet hardly very enforceable, and unlikely to survive court challenge.
You find it funny that laws are being subverted without question, and responsibility for one's behavior is tossed out the window when it comes to perverts preying on kids? You have a very flip attitude about it all.
Yes, you can legislate morality, are in restricting immoral behaviors. Perhaps you think laws against speeding, vandalism, theft, etc. are wrong since persons should act morally regardless.
The problem becomes when laws do not reflect the ethos of the Founders overall their primary moral source, when those who elect their interpreters overall hold to those of a immoral post-Christian ideology.
Meaning traditional basic universal Biblical morals are minimized or replaced by the "new morality." In which profanity and blasphemy of God is largely obligatory in Hollywood, and man is made gender neutral ("they babies"), and morality is to fail to use subjective-defined gender pronouns, release too much CO2, eat meat, wear fur, doubt Climageddon, vote GOP, etc.
Wrong, and which supports abolishing such, contrast to Scripture. Laws did and do deter down rape and immorality, conversely, laws that penalize dissent from PC deter the latter. But laws only most effectively morally work when they flow from a government and a populace that supports traditional universal Biblical moral laws, leaving outlaws to be the minority.
While the latter become the majority due to the moral declension of the heart, yet this does not invalidate the function of laws, from noise ordinances to murder. For as enforced, they serve to control, if not convert, the rebellious. They police are usually called upon an assaulter.
When man is not rightly controlled from within by God and sound conscience then he musty be controlled from without. The function of the church is to foster the former, while to the state is the just use of the sword of man upon those who do not act consistent with God and conscience.
And the Bible supports moral laws:
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: (1 Peter 2:13-15)
However, when the people fall away from the Lord and elect liberal lawmakers, then the latter persecute the Godly, and iniquity increases.
In short, both formation of Godly character as well as laws that punish unGodly actions are correct, but both are to work together.
Oh yes, moral laws are superfluous, which is why both the OT and NT abound with them, and affirm civil authorities enforcing them. /sarc
Both have their place. A moral society fosters moral character, which is expressed in laws which and help keep a society moral by deterring those who act contrary. The more who do the latter, then the more deterrent is required, but not as a substitute for the formation of moral character.
The more children lack self-control, the more rules are made and enforced. The disorderly Corinthians required more discipline, while promoting maturity. The former reflect the later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.