Florida's Youth Social Media Ban Is an Affront to Freedom
Don't let a moral panic shut everything down.

From book bans to anti-ESG legislation, when it comes to dabbling in its citizens' private lives, Florida's legislature knows no bounds. The latest intrusion of choice is now aimed at social media.
On January 24, the Florida House passed House Bill 1 (HB1) to ban kids 16 and under from using social media. If HB1 becomes law, social media platforms would be forced to implement prescriptive age verification methods for all users (including adults) and carry disclaimers that their products may be harmful.
Proponents of the bill have framed HB1 as a necessary measure intended to "protect" children from the negative impacts of these "addictive" technologies. Frequently cited are claims that adolescents are subject to cyberbullying and sexual predation on these platforms. Of particular concern is the role that excessive social media use plays on teenagers' mental health.
However, several studies have shown that these claims are unfounded and, at best, speculative. A study published in 2021 in the journal Clinical Psychological Science found that increased technology use among adolescents is not linked to a decline in mental well-being. More recently, another study published by the Oxford Internet Institute found no association between widespread Facebook adoption and psychological harm. In fact, findings from the Oxford study suggested the opposite—that Facebook membership was linked to positive mental well-being. This makes sense, as Facebook is a social media forum that connects friends and family, and therefore, nurtures relationships. Moreover, such platforms have served as a vital source of social support for teenagers deprived of human connection during the COVID-19 era.
Blaming social media for mental health issues isn't new. Any time new forms of entertainment and social technologies are introduced, society's natural response is to react with a mixture of nervous apprehension followed by gradual acceptance of the unfamiliar technology.
Consider the ubiquitous "dime novel" of the 20th century (named for its cheap price). When these sensational and wildly sought-after paperbacks first became popular, many cultural commentators believed they were thought to elicit "promiscuous behavior" and moral depravity among their audience. Social critics fretted that these adventure and romance-ridden novels were leading to so-called "reading mania" and "reading rage." These fears were so widely embedded in the collective psyche that Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther was even blamed for a spate of suicides during its time.
The thought that an "epidemic of reading" could ever be considered a social ill nowadays seems absurd. However, to people back then, these were real and legitimate concerns. Sociologist Frank Furedi aptly described "penny dreadfuls," as they were called in the United Kingdom, as the media's "first moral panic."
Similarly, when video games peaked in popularity in the 1980s, they were blamed for an increase in real-world violence and acts of aggression—even mass shootings. Nowadays, most people consider this argument null. However, these myths are difficult to eradicate among the general population once they take hold.
Other forms of social entertainment that have been unfairly targeted and subject to the "violence" scapegoat narrative include the radio dramas of the 1940s, comic books and television, and music lyrics.
Unfortunately, this same phenomenon is now taking place in the Sunshine State. Well-meaning politicians "concerned" with declining mental health among teenagers blame social media and seek to censor platforms like Facebook and Instagram. Even if it is true that such platforms adversely affect mental health, the decision to prevent teenagers from engaging with these technologies is still one that ought to rest with the parents, not the government.
While there has been a rise in mental health problems across the U.S., social media is not to blame, but rather insufficient access to mental health services. According to the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, scant access to care is the primary cause of the mental health crisis. Barriers like high cost and paltry insurance coverage, as well as limited options and long waits, hinder access to proper treatment. More than 40 percent of candidates polled in a study named cost and poor insurance coverage as the top barrier for obtaining the help they need. Instead of banning platforms that connect people socially, politicians should consider reforming mental health policy.
It is true that adolescents do not have the same capacities to engage in rational decision-making as full-grown adults. But that is precisely why parents should have the ultimate say when it comes to deciding what ideas and information their children can access.
The Florida legislature is forgetting its original purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens and unlawfully engaging in constitutional overreach with the passage of HB1. The government doesn't try to prevent teenagers from indulging in every single harmful behavior (like eating unhealthy fast food) just because of some negative consequences. That would be considered serious governmental overreach. Florida's creeping descent into paternalism should be viewed in the same light.
HB1 is poised to reach the Governor's desk in the coming month. Implementation of a similar law in Utah is going poorly, and up against significant court challenges. For the sake of the First Amendment and free speech writ large, Florida should stop trying to carry out a blanket and unconstitutional ban on Floridians' freedom.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
From book bans...
Stop right there a moment. Curating a school library for age-appropriate materials and not including certain books within a curriculum is not a book ban. You can go over the B&N and pick any one of those supposedly "banned" books up.
Maybe social media isn't for kids. It's been shown that social media increases the suicide rate for teenage girls, and that rate increases with the time spent on social media.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/teenage-girl-social-media-suicide-risk-5112795
"Stop right there a moment. Curating a school library for age-appropriate materials and not including certain books within a curriculum is not a book ban."
But how are they going to weave a narrative if they can't steal any bases? Come ooooooon.
Yeah, I stopped reading after the "book bans" statement. So tired of narrative driven journalism.
And sad too, because I likely agree that banning social media for kids is dumb.
Here is where I'd say that it's a parents responsibility to control a kids social media use.
But since we have an epidemic of sperm and egg donors who treat kids like accidents and phone in their job of parenting or worse want the state to do the parenting for them how is this a bad thing? I live without any social media. I'm... well let's say if I were a car I'd be a classic. Social media is worse than reality TV, which I wouldn't say no to being banned for adults too.
I think until the majority of people want to parent their kids for real maybe state governments need to step in and protect kids from themselves.
But "ban" is accurate.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban
to prohibit especially by legal means
The librarians at those libraries did not decide on their own to curate their collection to get rid of LGBTQ books. It was agents of the state which forced them to. That is different than mere 'curation', which implies that the librarians have a choice to pick one book or another. In this case, that choice was taken away from the librarians by the state.
You just don't like it that your preferred policy sounds so icky. Who wants to come right out and say they are in favor of banning books? So you try to spin and twist it into something else to make it seem more palatable than it is.
You are deliberately conflating this with something it is clearly not.
In doing so, you help people who actually do want to ban the possession and sale of books, including National Socialists, Communists, and Terrorists.
You are aiding these terrible people for cheap political points. Is that worth it?
You are deliberately conflating this with something it is clearly not.
I see you've met Jeffy, our local conflater and obfuscator.
Hate to break it to you, but banning free expression is a bipartisan affair.
YOU are the one providing cover for the authoritarians on the right by refusing to state clearly what it is that they are doing, which is using the power of the state to ban books from school libraries.
"school libraries" ... as-in Commie-Education.
I think you lost your argument right there. I agreed with you till then.
Yeah, I quit reading right there. Could be some good information somewhere in the article, but when the lead sentence contains that kind of obvious bullshit I'm not bothering with the rest of the article.
"While there has been a rise in mental health problems across the U.S., social media is not to blame, but rather insufficient access to mental health services. "
Whatever did we do before the mental health servicers came on the scene?
We talked to family, friends, went to a church...
Ran crazy with out gang - - - -
Family, friends and church were where I got my problems from. Drugs were my method of coping.
Drink booze, do illegal drugs, engage in risky premarital sex...
The usual.
It's always something.
Comic books
Pinball
Video games
Whatever
Parents want an excuse for why their kid is messed up without taking blame for it.
If they are old enough to change genders, they are old enough to use social media to talk them in to it.
Parents could just not buy their kids smartphones if they are so concerned over the use of them. Of course that doesn't involve government telling people what to do, so I'm silly to even suggest it.
Our son got a smart phone around the same time he started to drive. He was allowed to give out our smartphone numbers to friends who he wanted to talk with.
The main reason for the smartphone was so he could call me if the car that cost less than the phone broke down. Actually he got my old phone when I upgraded come to think of it.
Whew! I was getting worried for a while. Good to see a Florida article again.
ORANGES MAN B- Oh...right. He's out of the race. Nevermind.
Why is Florida stealing bad policy ideas from Utah?
C'mon now. Everyone knows Republicans are the moral guardians of the nation. It is only right that they should impose their morality into law. For our own good.
I believe in the veracity of no studies discussed by Reason writers until they have Aaron Brown writing a piece talking about how bad the methodology is. Funny how they only trot him out to pick apart studies that show findings contrary to the arguments they want to make.
From book bans
= keeping pornography away from minors
to anti-ESG legislation
= prevent the misuse of state funds to subsidize progressive political causes
when it comes to dabbling in its citizens' private lives, Florida's legislature knows no bounds
Florida's legislature operates within the bounds set by the US Constitution.
The latest intrusion of choice is now aimed at social media. On January 24, the Florida House passed House Bill 1 (HB1) to ban kids 16 and under from using social media.
Seems reasonable to me for a conservative state to try this. Let's see how it works out.
Seems reasonable to me for a conservative state to try this. Let’s see how it works out.
What about the people in Florida whose liberty will be infringed by this law?
The people of Florida voted for this.
Do you reject self determination?
When it infringes on fundamental liberties? Of course. The mob doesn't get to vote to take away my inalienable rights.
Why do you think the mob should be able to oppress a numerical minority?
I recently became aware that you can't say gay in Florida meaning I could not sing along with my collection of VHS Flintstones tapes if I were to move there. Fuck that.
Yes we know. Describing peaceful migration as an 'invasion' is totally legit, but describing a law which everyone knows is going to be used to go after LGBTQ material as "Don't Say Gay" is just intolerably dishonest.
This is why DeSantis didn't win.
Republicans need to stop with their personal life nanny tendencies.
While there has been a rise in mental health problems across the U.S., social media is not to blame, but rather insufficient access to mental health services.
*facepalm*
So, the increase in mental health problems just magically appeared, even though we know what is a major contributor to them – but the problem isn’t the contributor, it’s that we don’t have enough resources to deal with the fallout of that contribution.
I just poisoned your water bottle with arsenic. The problem isn’t me or my poison, that’s not to blame, it’s that YOU have allocated enough resources for poison control.
FFS.
This is a very fun and entertaining post. You shared some hilarious and amusing anecdotes that I found very relatable and enjoyable. You also showed some personality and flair with your style and tone. You are a witty and charming blogger and I love your entertainment. Please visit : Tabungan rumah tangga
Is that web site name one that Joe Biden gave out over the phone?
Is it supposed to be "Biden-Harris 2024"?
Ageism is so boring. When I was a kid heavy metal music was the scourge. Thankfully Tipper saved us from all that. Just as before this will all look quaint and idiotic in a couple decades.