{"id":70345,"date":"2025-12-03T23:54:07","date_gmt":"2025-12-03T23:54:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/70345\/"},"modified":"2025-12-03T23:54:07","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T23:54:07","slug":"groups-seek-to-speed-up-social-media-case-tallahassee-reports","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/70345\/","title":{"rendered":"Groups Seek to Speed Up Social Media Case \u2013 Tallahassee Reports"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"fb-share-icon\"<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Tweet\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

By Jim Saunders, The News Service of Florida<\/p>\n

TALLAHASSEE \u2014 After a ruling last week allowed Florida to begin enforcing a 2024 law designed to prevent children from having access to certain social-media sites, tech industry groups Wednesday asked a federal appeals court to quickly hear arguments about whether the law violates First Amendment rights.<\/p>\n

The groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association filed a motion requesting that the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals \u201cexpedite\u201d oral arguments and a decision on the constitutional issue.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in June issued a preliminary injunction to block the law (HB 3), agreeing with the industry groups that it likely violated the First Amendment. The state appealed Walker\u2019s decision, and a panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court last week approved a stay of the preliminary injunction.<\/p>\n

The stay effectively allowed the state to begin enforcing the law while the underlying appeal of Walker\u2019s decision continues to play out. Wednesday\u2019s motion seeks to speed up consideration of that underlying appeal.<\/p>\n

\u201cFlorida House Bill 3 is the latest attempt in a long line of government efforts to restrict new forms of constitutionally protected expression based on concerns about their potential effects on minors,\u201d the motion said. \u201cThis constitutional challenge to its restrictions accordingly raises exceptionally important issues about the First Amendment rights of \u2026 Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice members to communicate with their users and the First Amendment rights of those users to access some of the most popular online services operated. Those rights are under threat of immediate harm because the injunction (the industry groups) had obtained to prevent HB 3\u2019s enforcement and to safeguard members\u2019 and their users\u2019 constitutional rights is now stayed.\u201d<\/p>\n

After last week\u2019s ruling, Attorney General James Uthmeier quickly posted on X that \u201cHB 3 is now the law of the state and will be enforced.\u201d A separate legal battle had already been pending about an attempt by Uthmeier to enforce the law against the operator of Snapchat.<\/p>\n

The law prevents children under age 14 from opening accounts on certain platforms \u2014 which court documents indicate could include platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube. Parents would have to give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts on the platforms.<\/p>\n

The law did not name platforms that would be affected. But it includes criteria such as whether platforms\u2019 features include infinite scroll and autoplay.<\/p>\n

Supporters of the law, one of the biggest issues of the 2024 legislative session, contend that the targeted platforms have addictive features that harm children\u2019s mental health. The three-judge panel of the appellate court was sharply divided last week about imposing the stay on the preliminary injunction.<\/p>\n

\u201cRather than blocking children from accessing social media altogether, HB 3 simply prevents them from creating accounts on platforms that employ addictive features,\u201d Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote in the 26-page majority opinion joined by Judge Barbara Lagoa. \u201cAnd even among such platforms, the law narrows its focus to those that have evidenced significant usage by children and young teens. The district court (Walker) erred in holding otherwise.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Judge Robin Rosenbaum, in a 29-page dissent, called the law \u201cplainly unconstitutional on its face\u201d and said it also will affect adults, who will be subject to age verification to have accounts on the targeted platforms.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs it\u2019s written, the act purports to regulate the speech of everyone who uses the covered social media websites,\u201d Rosenbaum wrote. \u201cFor minors, it acts as a categorical ban on speech (and access to speech) on covered social media platforms. And it forces the platform to demand identifying information from all users, including adults. In doing so, it chills countless users\u2019 speech on deeply personal, political, religious and familial matters \u2014 reaching the heart of what the First Amendment was designed to protect in the first place.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the motion filed Wednesday, attorneys for the industry groups said the state in October requested expedited arguments on the preliminary injunction. The court did not take action on the request, which the industry groups did not oppose.<\/p>\n

\u201cExpedition is therefore now more important than ever because all parties need clarity as to the ultimate enforceability of HB 3,\u201d the motion said. \u201cAnd the acute and irreparable harms that will be caused by uncertainty over HB 3\u2019s enforceability reinforce the good cause for expediting review of the merits of the district court\u2019s opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"fb-share-icon\"<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Tweet\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t