| ▲ | hearsathought 3 days ago |
| > Florida passed a similar law, and a bunch of other states are attempting to but are blocked by federal courts. When much of government ( federal, state, local ) communication is done via social meda, would it be legal to ban anyone from accessing it? Or are official government social media sites required to be accessible to everyone? |
|
| ▲ | jedberg 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| People under 18 don't have the same rights. |
| |
| ▲ | Aloisius 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In the US, children's right to free speech has only very narrow exceptions compared to an adult. The Supreme Court has even struck down state bans on selling violent video games to children because it violates a child's first amendment rights. A full ban on social media full of protected speech? That passing Constitutional muster would require some legal gymnastics and overwhelming scientific evidence of harm - evidence that is sorely lacking despite what people believe. | | |
| ▲ | mullingitover 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > That passing Constitutional muster would require some legal gymnastics In the previous era of principles, sure. In The Year of Our Dear Leader, 2025? The Republican Supreme Court just needs the order from above, and the Constitution will say what the ruler says it says. | | |
| ▲ | aorloff 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Jackson's Calvinball footnote was not nearly as alarming as it should have been. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Lerc 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Agreed. What rights should they have though? |
|
|
| ▲ | stevage 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The Australian ban doesn't block anyone from accessing content. |
| |
| ▲ | yieldcrv 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Unless the social media site puts up super random login gates and A/B testing anti-patterns that blocks you from accessing content? |
|
