Philosophical Productive Discussion

[Eric Cartman]

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).

I'll stand with my 'lets define what we mean first' post then.
'Didactic' social media already has regulation. I don't consider it a free speech issue to say only certain groups can engage with it any more than having age limits on anyn other content for its inappropriateness for minors to evaluate in the correct context.

In terms of 'cooperative' social media, I don't necessarily see need for external restrictions, as it will largely define and then enforce its own community guidelines.


For the purpose of this specific topic, I consider TikTok to be the first (Didactic) type of media, same as instagram, given that the content creator has full control over what if any response is visible; they are their own editors, they are their own moderators, they can't claim free speech harbour when they have the power to remove dissent from their own posts.