Philosophical Productive Discussion

[PogiJones]

Your citation does not require every person who wishes to view any motion picture anywhere to get state approval to do so. That's what a law requiring you to confirm your identity with the state before being allowed to view any website would be equivalent to.

That's a fair distinction to make. I'd point out that some states already require this of porn sites, but in terms of distinguishing this from the zoning example, that is a good distinction. I mentioned the zoning example because it covered all the criteria you had listed, but yes, as you add more criteria, it does become distinct.

edit: In fact the very next part of what you cited explains how an attempt to even limit certain websites would not be content-neutral as you're trying to argue.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you talking about the publicly visible nude movies part? That's content-based. Or are you referring to something else?

You guys need to state your premise before quarantining into the Deep Dive Debate thread

The premise (please adjust if needed to focus discussion where possible to the underlying debate rather than the cited examples or imperfection of analogies):
"'Social Media' has caused demonstrable harm to society, but as a paradigm of literally free speech, should go largely unregulated despite that harm".

Is this a fair summary of the topic at hand to deep dive into?

The topic is whether the Florida law restricting social media to ages 16+ is constitutional. More specifically, whether it would be evaluated as a content-based speech restriction (requiring a "strict scrutiny" burden for the gov't to prove) or a content-neutral speech restriction (requiring an "intermediate scrutiny" burden for the gov't to prove).