Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Social Media

DeSantis Vetoed a Social Media Age-Verification Law, but That Doesn't Mean He Won't Sign a New One

A law forcing kids off social media sites is still likely coming to Florida.

Emma Camp | 3.4.2024 4:55 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Ron DeSantis | Matias J. Ocner/Miami Herald/TNS/Newscom
(Matias J. Ocner/Miami Herald/TNS/Newscom)

Last week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed a bill that would have enacted sweeping restrictions on minors' ability to use social media. However, DeSantis' veto appears to be less about a commitment to keep the state out of parenting decisions—like whether to let a teenager on social media—and more about the bill's likelihood of being overturned after a legal challenge.

The original bill, House Bill 1, would have banned those younger than 16 from making an account on most social media sites and required companies to delete accounts that they believe could be—but not necessarily confirmed to be—owned by users under 16. The bill would also have required social media sites to use a third-party to verify users' age. Companies that violated the law could have been fined up to $50,000 per incident.

The bill was broadly popular and passed the Florida Senate with a 30–5 vote. But DeSantis vetoed the bill last week. In a post to X (formerly Twitter), DeSantis wrote that he vetoed the bill to make way for a superior proposal.

"I have vetoed HB 1 because the Legislature is about to produce a different, superior bill," DeSantis wrote on Friday. "Protecting children from harms associated with social media is important, as is supporting parents' rights and maintaining the ability of adults to engage in anonymous speech."

The alternate bill, H.B. 3, keeps many of the provisions as H.B. 1, though the updated bill does not include a provision requiring the deletion of possibly underage accounts. Additionally, an amendment recently approved by the state Senate would allow 14- and 15-year-olds to make social media accounts with a parent's permission but keep a blanket ban for younger children.

Even with a lowered age restriction, Florida's newest social media age verification bill will still likely face legal challenges, as several other states that have enacted similar laws have. While forcing social media companies to kick kids off their platforms has become an increasingly popular proposal across state legislatures, such restrictions almost inevitably end up violating minors' First Amendment rights to access social media content.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Oregon Legislators Overwhelmingly Vote To Recriminalize Low-Level Drug Possession

Emma Camp is an associate editor at Reason.

Social MediaTechnologyFirst AmendmentRegulationChildrenChildren's RightsFloridaRon DeSantisState GovernmentsLegislationInternetTeenagersParentingParental Rights
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (35)

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.

  1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

    Biden spent less than last year, but that doesn't mean he won't spend more next year.

    Kamala cackled less than before, but that doesn't mean she won't cackle more next year.

    Hillary didn't claim the 2020 election was stolen, but that doesn't mean she won't claim 2024 is her turn again.

    1. Knutsack   1 year ago

      "I have vetoed HB 1 because the Legislature is about to produce a different, superior bill," DeSantis wrote on Friday.

      I think that explains the headline.

      1. damikesc   1 year ago

        Without knowing what the different and superior bill is, this is just pathetic fear-mongering.

        There are bills Reason would find different and superior.

        1. Knutsack   1 year ago

          I guess we'll see, but given the context, it's hard to believe that it's going to be better for freedom.

          1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

            Very true. "Superior" in the view of DeSanctimonious when it comes to moral issues can't be good for the casue of liberty.

      2. BigT   1 year ago

        Knutsack quoted the story, but that doesn’t mean he won’t quote Mein Kampf tomorrow.

        1. Knutsack   1 year ago

          I might!

  2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

    "HE DIDN'T DO IT AND REFUSED TO DO IT, BUT HE'S GONNA DO IT!!!! Proof? Trust me, bro." - t. Emma

  3. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

    Hey, here's a novel idea. Why not return both the power and the responcibility to the parents and let them deal with their kids? If they totally fuck it up and raise halfwit losers then they suffer the real punishment, a 30 year old living in your basement not paying rent.

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      And if they choose to molest or cripple their kids?

      1. TJJ2000   1 year ago

        Do you think social media molests and cripples kids?

        1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

          Only if you get the kind of robots from Mitchell's versus the Machines as your interface with social media.

        2. JesseAz   1 year ago

          That wasn't the question I asked. Read his initial post. It didn't isolate social media.

          Reading is fundamental buddy

          1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

            Wow, that's your excuse for going strait to rape and mutilation.

            It's the second post on the topic. I didnt think I needed to specifically mention that we should be returning the power and responsibility to parents regarding the use of various telecommunication devices, access to certain internet sites, use of those sites and the psychological and social impacts of using said technologies. Seems everyone else understood what I was talking about.

      2. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

        Then it's likely that in the first case they will never see their kid again and in the second case never get them to move out. Punishments that fit the crime.

        My wife's father is an abusive peice of shit. Guess what, he doesn't get to see his grand kids. He doesn't get to see most of his own kids. He lives in a retirement community in Pennsylvania with his wife and most likely a few dogs to kick around. Just what he deserves.

        What do you expect from a society? Do you want us all to live with cameras in our homes being watched 24/7 with a Child Protective Services tactical team ready to roll at the first sign of abuse? Do you think you know the best way to raise a child and will impose your ideas on everyone through government?

        Kids fall through the cracks. Kids get abused. Kids get brainwashed. Kids get all manner of crappy situations dumped on them. Kids also get over it and move on in many cases. Some use the pain as an excuse, some as a fuel. You don't know what will happen.

        Want to know the best way to insure just about every child is loved, cared for and not abused or mistreated? Make sure all of them are wanted.

        Best way to do that, keep abortion available as an option without the stigma placed on it from the various religious sects. Make sure if a woman carries to term it is a well thought out concept and she had every opportunity to not be a mother. Odds are you will have fewer kids mistreated by a parent or parents who didn't want the kid in the first place.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          That's a long way to say you refuse to answer the question.

          I'm trying to get you to admit there is a line. The location of the line is the follow up. You realized this so produced a shit load of gish gallop to avoid the question.

          1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

            The line? There is no line. There can’t be a line. Some people spank their kids, some don’t. Both are sure the others kids are the problem. Some indoctrinate their kids into a religion, others don’t. Again both are sure the others kids are the problem.

            Abuse? Define the line between what some call dicipline and some call abuse. I've talked to people who think as long as you don't do permanent damage it's all fine.

            Mutilation? Some people mutilate the genitals of boy children by removing the foreskin. But that's legal.

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago

              So in your view a parent can fuck a kid. You aren't libertarian. Youre an anarchist at best. You don't defend individual rights. You defend the power structure as having final say.

              1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

                What the litteral fuck?

                Look, with all the government we can afford and then some kids still get molested. Kids still get indoctrinated into cults, kids still get beaten, kids still are unloved and unwanted. How much more government intrusion do you think we need to protect every single one from having bad parents?

                Again, as another said quite well, is social media molesting kids? What does this idiotic law have to do with protecting kids from Uncle Touchy?

      3. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

        “Responsibility” does not include molesting or crippling your kids. I have the responsibility to not murder my neighbor. If I murder my neighbor anyway, the state can and should investigate, charge me with the crime, prosecute me and punish me if I’m found guilty. Same thing for parents. The question here is: should the state define allowing your kids to participate in social media to be a crime. That is ALWAYS the question when the state tries to define something as a crime and the Constitution should clearly state the limits on how and what the state can define as a crime.

        1. mad.casual   1 year ago

          The question here is: should the state define allowing your kids to participate in social media to be a crime. That is ALWAYS the question when the state tries to define something as a crime

          So when the state tries to make kicking Trump off the ballot a crime, the question should be should the state define allowing your kids to participate in social media to be a crime?

          Seems kinda... single minded.

        2. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

          The main problem I see is defining what is too far with your own child. I raised my son without physical discipline and religion. There are those who would say I was a bad parent because of that and say my son should have been taken away. I know this because people on various forums have said exactly that to me. Personally I think Sunday School is a kind of mental abuse and I think spankings are physical abuse. But again, should that be in the pack of lines the government shall draw?

          I think if you want to draw lines they need to be in regard to actual serious harm. Social Media doesn't qualify. Rape does. Beating a kid so he has to go to a hospital does. I don't think if a parent wants to go along with their kids bullshit pronouns that crosses a line.

          I don't think we can draw fine lines around certain surgeries and certain disfigurements while leaving others out of the lines. I get religious people want to stop parents from getting weird sex junk surgeries on their kids but did those same parents green light circumcision for their boys? Did those same parents use religious objections to avoid certain vaccines? Good for the goose is good for the gander unfortunately.

          Want to control your own kids medical decisions you need to let others do the same or else we have to hand this over to a government that will eventually be controlled by people who don't like you.

    2. AT   1 year ago

      The problem is that the responsible parents are then undermined by the schools/state who have made it abundantly clear that they have zero compunction whatsoever with substituting their own judgment for that of the parents, doing so behind their back, and have the kids forcibly removed from their parents custody if they put up even the slightest protest.

      If they'll eagerly trans your kid in human sacrifice to sate the unquenchable thirst of a rainbow satan, what makes you think they won't get them access to friggin' TikTok?

  4. TJJ2000   1 year ago

    The bipartisan attempt to have Gov-Media.
    Makes me sick to see Republicans pulling this sh*t.

    1. Overt   1 year ago

      And the sad fact is that this is exactly the government enabling bullshit that brought us the Patriot Act. And now that is being used against conservatives. I put the chances of this blowing up in Republicans' faces at...132.46%

      1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

        Sometimes I wonder if conservatives just enjoy being oppressed. After all, religion thrives under oppression and dies when sanctioned by the state. European nations often have a state church and membership in it is always falling. In the US where we have some consituational limits on the interaction of church and state fundamentalist hard core cross cultists are flourishing. You can't run for public office in this nation if you are a public Atheist. Even democrats pretend to be Christians.

    2. SRG2   1 year ago

      Makes me sick to see Republicans pulling this sh*t.

      LOL. They are always pulling this shit. See today's Volokh article: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/04/eleventh-circuit-strikes-down-stop-w-o-k-e-acts-restrictions-on-private-employers/

      1. TJJ2000   1 year ago

        Only out-done by Democrats pulling mandatory Woke-Indoctrination BS and ALREADY controlling the media. Course leftards will never ever ever call out their own [WE] gangsters because the left lives in a world of [WE] affiliation loyalty.

  5. Overt   1 year ago

    Jesus Christ, parents. Take care of your god damn kids. Don't give them a phone if you are so a'feared of their brains being melted by that lizardman, Zuck.

    There is not a phone out there that doesn't let you monitor what your kids run on it. And if your kids are really the type of assholes to jailbreak their phones then take that shit away from them and give them a flip phone. This isn't rocket surgery.

    God knows, it's hard to act like the grown up in your family. I get that. I, too, have regular battles with my kids over their Screen Time. But I don't need Ron fucking DeSantis to make those hard calls. Just tell your kids, "No". For fuck's sake.

    1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

      It's not as hard as many seem to think.

  6. AT   1 year ago

    A law forcing kids off social media sites is still likely coming to Florida.

    High five.

  7. Del Varner 2   1 year ago

    Hey! Here’s an idea. Why not limit the possession and use of “smart phones” to those over 18. If you are under 18 you can use a phone that make calls and can text, No Camera No Internet

    1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

      So the government takes over parenting even more.

      Hey, why not just hand your kid over at birth to the government and let them raise it to adulthood and you never need to even look at the brat ever again?

  8. BigT   1 year ago

    ;DeSantis' veto appears to be less about a commitment to keep the state out of parenting decisions—like whether to let a teenager on social media—and more about the bill's likelihood of being overturned after a legal challenge.

    That’s good governance. Rare in the USA. Don’t sign faulty laws.

    Yet she bitches.

  9. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

    People mocked Trump for calling this guy DeSanctamonious. The .ore I read about this guy the more I think everyone owes Trump an apology. He was dead balls accurate on that one.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Can We End Racism by Ending the Idea of Race Itself?

Rachel Ferguson | From the June 2025 issue

The Supreme Court Said States Can't Discriminate in Alcohol Sales. They're Doing It Anyway.

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 5.24.2025 7:00 AM

Cocaine Hippos, Monkey Copyrights, and a Horse Named Justice: The Debate Over Animal Personhood

C.J. Ciaramella | From the June 2025 issue

Harvard's Best Protection Is To Get Off the Federal Teat

Autumn Billings | 5.23.2025 6:16 PM

Trump's Mass Cancellation of Student Visas Illustrates the Lawlessness of His Immigration Crackdown

Jacob Sullum | 5.23.2025 5:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!