Federal judge halts Florida's social media ban for kids
A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction against Florida's HB 3, a law regarding youth and social media accounts.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in Tallahassee says in court documents obtained by FOX Business that the law is a violation of the First Amendment's protections on free speech.
Walker's ruling on Tuesday sides with trade groups NetChoice and Computer and Communications Industry Association, putting HB 3 on hold until the litigation is resolved.
"Today's ruling is yet another affirmation that the government cannot control or censor online speech. Like all Americans, Floridians have the right to access lawful speech without the government controlling what they say, share or see online," Chris Marchese, NetChoice Director of Litigation, said in a statement.
Texas Bill Pushes Strictest Social Media Ban For Minors In The Nation
"Lawmakers should focus on real, constitutional alternatives that respect both family autonomy and free speech," he continued.
Read On The Fox Business App
Jeremy Redfern, a spokesman for Republican Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, whose office is defending the law, said in a statement obtained by Reuters that the "platforms do not have a constitutional right to addict kids to their products." Uthmeier's office plans to appeal it to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he said.
Snapchat 'Openly Defying' Law, Allowing Kids Access To Harmful, Addictive Content: Florida Ag
HB 3 requires social media platforms to bar users under the age of 14 and requires users under 16 to get parental consent before opening an account. It was supposed to go into effect Jan. 1, but was put on hold due to litigation.
NetChoice, which represents social media platforms, has won injunctions in recent months against similar laws in Utah and California that restricted the use of social media platforms by youths.
Click Here To Read More On Fox Business
In Tuesday's ruling, Walker said he appreciated that parents are concerned about their children's social media use, but that other, unchallenged provisions of the law offered them recourse. The industry groups did not address some parts of the law that directed social media companies to delete youth accounts at parental request.
Reuters contributed to this report. Original article source: Federal judge halts Florida's social media ban for kids
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Iran's ‘proportionate response' will be set by military, envoy tells UN
Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, condemned the United States' involvement in its conflict with Israel, and said the nation's military would determine its response after President Trump on Saturday ordered the bombing of three of Iran's nuclear sites. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly warned the warmongering US regime to refrain from stumbling into this quagmire, even though Iran reserves its full and legitimate right under international law to defend itself against this blatant US aggression and its Israeli proxy,' he said at the United Nations. 'The timing, nature and the scale of Iran's proportionate response will be decided by its armed forces.' The United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on the escalating war on Sunday afternoon. Iran, the U.S. and Israel were among the nations that spoke to the attack during the meeting. Iravani described the action as the U.S. helping Israel carry out its 'vile agenda.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked Trump on Saturday for directing U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. 'President Trump and I often say, 'Peace through strength.' First comes strength, then comes peace. And tonight, President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength,' Netanyahu said in a video on the social platform X. Iravani said the Israeli president had hijacked 'U.S. foreign policy, dragging the United States into yet another costly, baseless war.' Dorothy Shea, the interim U.S. ambassador to the U.N., spoke ahead of Iravani, and defended Trump's actions. 'Iran has long obfuscated its nuclear weapons program and stonewalled good faith efforts in recent negotiations, Madam President, the time finally came for the United States in the defense of its ally and in the defense of our own citizens and interest, to act decisively,' she said in explaining Saturday's bombing. Shea told the council that Iran, for decades, 'has been responsible for misery and countless deaths across the Middle East. Iran's government and its proxies have also killed numerous Americans, including American service members in Iraq and Afghanistan.' She accused Iranian officials of ramping up 'hostile bluster and rhetoric' over recent weeks.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Harris gives California governor's race a serious look
Kamala Harris is leaning toward entering the California gubernatorial race, sources familiar with the former vice president's thinking tell The Hill. While the sources caution that Harris hasn't made a final decision yet and is still considering all her options, they say she has made it clear that she is not done with public service and is giving the race strong consideration. Those who have spoken to Harris about the possibility of entering the race say it has given her a renewed sense of excitement and, as one source put it, 'a glimmer in her eyes.' 'She has a lot of people in her ear telling her that it makes the most sense and she can do the most good,' said one source who has spoken to Harris about a potential run. But another source close to Harris pushed back on the idea that she is inclined to enter the contest. The source said the topic of the gubernatorial race is dominating many of the conversations she is having simply because of the fast-approaching 2026 match-up. Either way, the sources say Harris is sticking to a self-imposed end-of-summer deadline in deciding whether to wade into the already-crowded governor's race, where the contest includes former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who was also a member of the Biden administration as secretary of Health and Human Services. The former vice president is planning to take some time off in July, when sources say she hopes to further reflect on the next step in her political career. Harris's office did not comment for this story. In recent weeks, Harris has been participating in a string of conversations about the political climate in the state and the issues on the minds of Californians, the sources say. She has been particularly interested in the issues facing younger voters and has been holding lengthy discussions about the future of artificial intelligence (AI). Harris has kept a relatively low profile in recent months after a devastating loss in the 2024 presidential election — a race she thought she could win. While California has been in the headlines for a rash of news events, including the protests over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles earlier this month and the wildfires that ravaged major swaths of the state in January, the extent of Harris's public involvement has been posts on social platform X. 'Los Angeles is my home,' Harris wrote in a statement earlier this month on the protests. 'And like so many Americans, I am appalled at what we are witnessing on the streets of our city. Deploying the National Guard is a dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos.' 'In addition to the recent ICE raids in Southern California and across our nation, it is part of the Trump administration's cruel, calculated agenda to spread panic and division,' she added. Those close to the former vice president say she has been appalled by the Trump administration's bold moves, like deploying the National Guard. Harris has told confidants that she feels the president is governing by loyalty and retribution and that such actions will propel her to reenter public service. 'This moment almost requires her to do it,' one source close to Harris said. At the same time, if she chooses to enter the race, her confidants know she will have to contend with looming narratives about whether she helped conceal former President Biden's decline, something Republicans continue to press her on. Even one of her would-be opponents, Villaraigosa, has made it a talking point. 'Voters deserve to know the truth, what did Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra know, when did they know it, and most importantly, why didn't either of them speak out? This cover up directly led to a second Donald Trump term,' Villaraigosa wrote in a post on X last month that took aim at two potential rivals. Against the backdrop of these questions, there's a thought among some Democrats that a run for governor would be 'a consolation prize' with Harris having been close to winning the presidency less than a year ago. Her confidants cringe at that sentiment, and they say Harris brushes off such commentary. A decision by Harris to run for governor would be significant, political observers say, because it could take a 2028 presidential run off the table. 'I don't think she could, with a straight face, run for governor in 2026 without making an absolute pledge that she would not run for president in 2028,' said Garry South, a California-based Democratic strategist. An Emerson College poll in April revealed that 50 percent of Democratic voters in California would support Harris in a gubernatorial run. A separate survey from Politico/UC Berkeley Citrin Center also released in April revealed that 33 percent of Democratic voters in California would be 'joyful' about a Harris bid and 41 percent would be 'mostly excited.' Though those polls show she would be the clear front-runner in the race, some Democrats say they don't think that's enough for her to maintain a clear field. 'She would start out, at least initially, as the front-runner. There's no doubt about it because she has 100 percent name ID in California,' South said. 'I think there are real mixed feelings about her among California Democrats, and I think those mixed feelings would grow if she actually got into the race.' 'She doesn't come into this as an 800-pound gorilla,' he added. Even as some close to her say she's leaning toward running, some former aides and longtime observers in the state say they doubt Harris will run for governor because she has been, as one former aide put it, 'absent' from the events that have dominated the state. In the face of this month's protests in Los Angeles, for example, Harris was in the Hamptons attending the wedding of Huma Abedin and Alex Soros — two big names within Democratic circles. In April, Harris spoke at a gala before hundreds of donors in San Francisco and made no mention of state issues or political affairs. 'She's the kind of person that if she's going to do something, she's very serious about it, focused on it,' said Elizabeth Ashford, a California-based communications adviser who served as Harris's chief of staff when she was the state's attorney general. 'It just seems to me that this would be a summer of reintroducing herself as a Californian to Californians if that were really front of mind.' In the months since she left office, Harris has made most of her public appearances outside of California. Last month, the former vice president spoke at a closed-room real estate conference in Australia following a surprise Met Gala appearance in New York. She was in Las Vegas for a conference on AI in March and engaged with students at a Maryland community college in December. Her loss of the presidency in November raises questions for some California Democrats about how she will address the issue they say Democratic voters in the state care most about. 'I think California Democrats right now want somebody who's going to get in Trump's face,' said South, the California-based Democratic strategist. 'But I'm not sure that someone who just lost pretty badly to Donald Trump can posit themselves as the best counter against Donald Trump if they were to be governor of California.'
Vox
2 hours ago
- Vox
Three ways Trump's attack on Iran could spin out of control
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here. Vice President JD Vance, President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during an address to the nation in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. Carlos Barria/Reuters/Bloomberg via Getty Images When Vice President JD Vance appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday morning, anchor Kristen Welker asked him a simple question: Is the United States now at war with Iran? In response, Vance said, 'We're not at war with Iran; we're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' This is akin to saying that, in attacking Pearl Harbor, Imperial Japan had merely declared war on America's warship construction program. Yet it's notable that Vance felt the need to engage in such contortions — and that President Donald Trump, in his address to the nation last night, went out of his way to emphasize that there were no additional strikes planned. The Trump administration does not want to admit it has begun a war, because wars have a way of escalating beyond anyone's control. What we should be worrying about now is not how the US-Iran fighting began, but how it ends. It is all too easy to see how these initial strikes could escalate into something much bigger — if Iran's nuclear program remains mostly intact, or if Iran retaliates in a way that forces American counter-escalation. It's possible neither occurs, and this stays as limited as currently advertised. Or factors beyond our knowledge — the 'unknown unknowns' of the current conflict — could lead to an even greater escalation than anyone is currently predicting. The worst-case scenario, an outright regime change effort akin to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, cannot be entirely ruled out. I don't know how bad things will get, or even if things are likely to get worse. But when I watched Trump's speech, and heard his obviously premature claims that 'Iran's key nuclear facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,' I couldn't help thinking about another speech from over 20 years ago — when, after the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, George W. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and declared 'Mission Accomplished.' The mission hadn't been accomplished then, as it almost certainly hasn't been now. We can only hope that the resulting events this time are not a similar kind of catastrophe. Escalation pathway one: 'finishing the job' We do not know, at present, just how much damage American bombs have done to their targets — Iranian enrichment facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Satellite imagery shows that there are above-ground buildings still standing, belying Trump's claims of complete destruction, but many of the targets are underground. It's possible these were dealt a severe blow, and it's possible they weren't. Either scenario creates pathways to escalation. If the damage is indeed relatively limited, and one round of American bombs was not able to shatter the heavily reinforced concrete Iran uses to protect its underground assets, the Trump administration will face two bad choices. It can either let a clearly furious Iran retain operational nuclear facilities, raising the risk that they dash for a nuclear weapon, or it can keep bombing until the attacks have done sufficient damage to prevent Iran from getting a weapon in the immediate future. That commits the United States to, at minimum, an indefinite bombing campaign inside Iran. But even if this attack did do real damage, that leaves the question of the program's long-term future. Iran could decide, after being attacked, that the only way to protect itself is to rebuild its nuclear program in a hurry and get a bomb. It has already moved to quit the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), an agreement that gives international inspectors (and, by extension, the world) visibility into its nuclear development. There are, again, two ways to ensure that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei doesn't make such a choice: a diplomatic agreement akin to the 2015 nuclear deal, or else a war of regime change aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government altogether. The first isn't impossible, but it certainly seems unlikely at present. The US and Iran were negotiating on its nuclear program when Israel began bombing Iranian targets, seemingly using the talks as cover to catch Iran off guard. It seems very unlikely that Iran would see the US as a credible negotiating partner now that it has joined Israel's war. That leaves the other form of 'finishing the job': a full-on war of regime change. My colleague Josh Keating has argued, convincingly, that Israel wants such an outcome. And some of Trump's allies, including Sens. Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, have openly called for it. 'Wouldn't the world be better off if the ayatollahs went away and were replaced by something better?' Graham asked, rhetorically, in a Fox News interview last Monday. 'It's time to close the chapter on the Ayatollah and his henchmen. Let's close it soon.' Such a dire outcome seems, at present, very distant. But the further Trump continues down a hawkish path on Iran, the more thinkable it will become. Escalation pathway two: a US-Iran cycle of violence There's a military truism that, in war, 'the enemy gets a vote.' It could be that Iran's actions force American escalation even if the Trump administration doesn't want to go any further than it has right now. So far, Iran's military response to both US and Israeli attacks has been underwhelming. Tehran is clearly hobbled by the damage Israel did to its proxy militias, Hezbollah and Hamas, and its ballistic missiles are not capable of threatening the Israeli homeland in the way that many fear. But there are two things Iran hasn't tried that are, after American intervention, more likely to be on the table. The first is an attack on US servicemembers stationed in the Middle East, of which there are somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 at present. Of particular note are the US forces currently stationed in Iraq and Syria. Iraq is home to several Iranian-aligned militias that could potentially be ordered to directly attack American troops in the country or across the border in Syria. The second is an attack on international shipping lanes. The most dangerous scenario involves an attempt to use missiles and naval assets to close the Strait of Hormuz, a Persian Gulf passage used by roughly 20 percent of global oil shipping by volume. If Iran either kills significant numbers of American troops or attempts to do major damage to the global economy, there will surely be American retaliation. In his Saturday speech, Trump promised that if Iran retaliates, 'future [American] attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' An effort to detonate the global oil market would, without a doubt, necessitate such a response: The US cannot allow Iran to hold its economy hostage. We do not, to be clear, know whether Iran is willing to take such risks, or even if it can. Israeli attacks have devastated its military capabilities, including ballistic missile launchers that allow it to hit targets well beyond its borders. But a 'cycle of violence' is a very common way that violence escalates: One side attacks, the other side retaliates, prompting another attack, and on up the chain. Once they start, such cycles can be difficult to prevent from spiraling out of control. Escalation pathway three: the Iraq analogy, or things fall apart I want to be clear that escalation here isn't a given. It is possible that the US and its Israeli partners remain satisfied with one American bombing run, and that the Iranians are too scared or weak to engage in any major response. But those are a whole lot of 'ifs.' And we have no way of knowing, at present, whether we're heading to a best- or worst-case scenario (or one of several possibilities in the middle). Key decision points, like whether Trump orders another round of US raids on Fordow or Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz, will determine which pathways we go down — and it's hard to know which choices the key actors in Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem will make. I keep thinking about the 2003 Iraq war in part for obvious reasons: the US attacking a Middle Eastern dictatorship based on flimsy intelligence claims about weapons of mass destruction. But the other parallel, perhaps a deeper one, is that the architects of the Iraq War had little-to-no understanding of the second-order consequences of their choices. There was so much they didn't know, both about Iraq as a country and the likely consequences of regime change more broadly, that they failed to grasp just how much of a quagmire the war might become until it had already sucked in the United States. It's over 20 years later, and boots are still on the ground — drawn in by events, like the creation of ISIS, that were direct results of the initial decision to invade. Attacking Iran, even with the more 'modest' aim of destroying its nuclear program, carries similar risks. The attack carries so many potential consequences, involving so many different countries and constituencies, that it's hard to even begin to try to account for all the potential risks that might cause further US escalation. There are likely consequences taking shape, at this moment, that we can't even begin to conceive of. The nature of the Trump administration gives me little hope that they've properly gamed this out. The president himself is a compulsive liar and foreign policy ignoramus. The secretary of defense has run his department into the ground. The secretary of state, who is also the national security adviser, has more jobs than anyone could reasonably be expected to perform competently at once. It is, in short, far less competent on paper than the Bush administration was prior to the Iraq invasion — and look how that went. It's possible, despite all of this, that the Trump administration has adequately gamed out their choices here — preparing for all reasonably foreseeable contingencies and capable of acting swiftly in the (inevitable) event that some response catches the world by surprise. But if it didn't, then things could go badly and tragically wrong.
