Florida’s Social Media Ban for Kids

Starting January 1, 2025, kids under 14 living in Florida will no longer be allowed to use social media, according to House Bill 3 (HB 3), one of the most restrictive bans for minors on social media. Entering the New Year, platforms like Instagram and TikTok will be required to delete accounts owned by people under 14. In addition, 14- and 15-year-olds will be allowed to access social media but only with parental approval.

Overuse of social media is thought to be bad for the mental health of America’s youth. Despite this commonly held belief, many people aren’t happy about Florida’s new law. Some think it violates the First Amendment rights of children. Others believe it’s not the government’s responsibility to police what people of any age watch and read. Are the critics right? Is Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) overreaching?

The Ins and Outs of Florida’s Social Media Ban

While most Americans seem to agree that social media has negative consequences for the mental health of minors, many believe the ban is too extreme, especially without first trying other options. Still, “lawmakers have rushed headlong toward restricting protected expression as a first response rather than as a last resort,” suggests FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) in an article published on its website.

Posts on social media – images, videos, audio, and text – are considered expressive acts, and numerous people think these forms of expressions are – or should be – protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Unless a post fits into one of the First Amendment’s exceptions, “[t]he government can’t restrict it without surviving the applicable level of constitutional scrutiny,” according to FIRE. Not to mention, “it would teach them [children] the First Amendment doesn’t really mean what it says and that the government knows best. That’s a dangerous lesson for the next generation of Americans to learn.”

Youths are legally considered to have mostly the same rights as adults, to an extent. Minors “are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them,” according to the Supreme Court’s ruling nearly fifty years ago in Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, a case regarding restrictions at drive-in movie theaters. Jumping ahead to 2011, in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the Court overturned a law prohibiting kids under 18 from buying or renting “violent video games.” Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said even though the government “possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm,” it does not give it “a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”

Yet several states, including Ohio, Arkansas, Utah, and California, have attempted to limit minors’ access to social media. Most of these attempts, however, have been paused by lawsuits challenging their constitutionality.

Mixed Reactions

Parents appear to have mixed reactions. Some favor government regulation, but others believe bans like HB 3 step outside the laws and that parents should be the only ones monitoring their children’s media consumption.

“Protecting children is a laudable goal,” explained FIRE, “but enacting futile and unconstitutional legislation does not protect anyone. … If the government had unchecked power to control what information children could access, government officials would usurp parental imperatives and inevitably abuse that power to advance ideological agendas.”

Be that as it may, everyone on both sides seems to be missing one critical point: If a kid wants to read or watch something badly enough, they will likely find a way, regardless of the rules and any safeguards put in place.

1. A new law in Florida bans children under 14 from having any social media account and requires 14- and 15-year-olds to get parental permission before using social media.
2. Social media use is widely considered to be dangerous to the mental health of young people.
3. While the ban is intended to protect kids, many argue it is unconstitutional, as it may violate the First Amendment.