Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Is there a canonical decision of SCOTUS that children don't have First Amendment rights, and therefore it's OK to restrict their ability to post?

(note that rules which require proof of age tend also to turn into rules that end anonymity, because it's more work to separate the proof systems)

Edit: I ask a question about caselaw and end up at -3? Yes, I know, don't complain about downvotes, but I don't understand these at all.

View on HN

Yes we already restrict children from doing a ton of things e.g. buying or making pornography

Separate question, though - that's particular kinds of material (and for some reason US caselaw basically doesn't regard anything pornographic as "speech"), while this is a blanket restriction.

If you're 15, you're not allowed in a bar, and you're not allowed on a porn site, and you're not allowed to buy cigarettes.

The list goes on and on.

I fail to see how not being allowed on Facebook is different.

I think the argument is that there are no constitutional rights to bars, cigarettes, and porn. Social media is being held up as an example of "speech" here, which all US citizens are entitled to (at least in theory).

Social media is not “speech” it is a specific type of platform which you also do not have a constitutional right to.

The question is whether the venue in which the speech is performed in is sufficiently public as to be exempt from regulation. Given that participation on these sites exposes participants to heavy commercial advertising, traffic analysis, and data harvesting, I think it's a reasonable stance that the state can regulate participation.

I’m not sure I buy “social media” = “speech”. By that definition, social media companies shouldn’t be able to prevent anyone from using their website for any reason. Being banned for anything would then be equivalent to violating someone’s rights to speech.

Social media companies aren’t required to give a voice to anyone. They are platforms for enabling exercising speech, but they aren’t speech themselves. This seems equivalent to stating that not allowing children in bars or strip clubs violates their right to assembly.

Social media isn't controlled by the government though.

COPPA, a US federal law, has mandated that websites operating under US jurisdiction receive parental consent prior to collecting online information from children under age 13.[1][2]

As far as I'm concerned, this Florida state law practically extends it to children age 16 and under specifically with regards to social media websites and services.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Online_Privacy_Prot...

[2]: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C...

This is not a blanket restriction it is a ban on social media which a specific thing. Social media != speech it is a product created by a company for profit

Voting.

Driving, buying nicotine/lottery/porn, working, being in school, etc.

Looks like Bethel v. Fraser. 478 U.S. 675. 686 (1986) is the case you're looking for, in which case the court ruled that a school had the right to restrict speech of students (specifically to prevent them from swearing I think).

Here's a discussion of US law as it pertains to children that you might find interesting. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

"Don't complain about downvotes" I think means what it says. Don't complain about them. I have been downvoted when posting a correct solution to a persons technical problem before. It happens. Take it on the chin and move on.

It's not really a free speech question here. For instance, what a student can say in a public school (government tax payer funded) can be restricted to a point, but the courts have ruled that the 1st amendment still protects kids up to a point here. In a private school there are no such protections.

The law here is saying that social media companies are private companies and in order to do business with children they need to follow certain regulations now. This is perfectly normal and legal. For instance, a tavern has certain regulations regarding minors entry to them. There are many examples.

Technical question about free speech. Do you need to have right to see other speech to have free speech? So would it be enough for children to be able to post, but not read? As that would not violate their free speech.

Your question assumes that interacting with social media is a first ammendment right which I don't think is the case. Not sure though. That's likely the reason for the downvotes.

Your comment also has a bit of a "muh free speech" vibe which some people dislike.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com