from the was-he-the-dungeon-master? dept
When Florida’s lawyers tried to defend the state’s social media age restriction law by claiming it’s “well known” that platforms harm children, they probably weren’t expecting to get schooled on moral panics by a judge citing his own experiences with… Dungeons & Dragons. But that’s exactly what happened in a recent hearing challenging Florida’s unconstitutional law barring teenagers from social media — and it perfectly illustrated why we should be deeply skeptical of laws based on unproven claims of harm to children.
Florida’s law, HB 3, is part of a broader wave of state legislation trying to block social media access for anyone under 16. The justification is always the same: protecting children from harm. The evidence is always equally thin. And the constitutional problems are always glaring.
But what makes this particular hearing fascinating is how clearly it exposes three key problems with these laws: the shaky evidence, the troubling implications for parental rights, and most importantly, the way they echo previous moral panics about everything from comic books to rap music.
And why do these laws always focus on those under 16 specifically? What makes that the magic age to flip the switch? Nobody ever explains that. The best suggestion is that this is the age recommended in Jonathan Haidt’s widely debunked book about kids and social media. Except, as I noted in my review of the book, Haidt makes basically zero effort to defend why it’s okay for 16 year olds to use social media, but not anyone younger. He just notes that he “thinks” it makes more sense (which is a striking admission given how much Haidt and his supporters claim his book is supported by data and studies).
CCIA and NetChoice sued to stop the law from going into effect, and while there hasn’t been a ruling on a preliminary injunction yet, I did get my hands on some of the transcript from the hearing at the end of February.
The transcript reads like a master class in dismantling moral panic arguments. When Florida’s lawyers stood up in court to defend the law, they reached for what they clearly thought was their strongest argument: “Well, Your Honor, it is well known in this country that kids are addicted to these platforms.”
But Judge Mark Walker, chief judge of the Northern District of Florida, wasn’t buying what Florida was selling. His response cut straight to the heart of why these kinds of claims deserve skepticism, and some of it was based on his own childhood experience on the other side of a moral panic:
MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Well, Your Honor, it is well known in this country that kids are addicted to these platforms. This is a mental health —
THE COURT: It was well known when I was growing up that I was going to become a Satanist because I played Dungeons & Dragons. Is that — I don’t know what really that means. You can say that there’s studies, Judge, and you can’t ignore expert reports that say X.
The D&D reference isn’t just an amusing comeback — it’s a federal judge explaining through personal experience why courts shouldn’t accept “everybody knows” arguments about harm to children. After all, lots of things have been “well known” to harm children over the years. It was “well known” that chess made kids violent. Or that the waltz would be fatal to young women, or that the phone would prevent young men from ever speaking to young women again. I could go on with more examples, because there are so many.
When Florida’s lawyer tried to argue that social media was somehow different — that this time the moral panic was justified — Judge Walker was ready with historical receipts:
MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Kids weren’t reading comics — millions and millions of kids weren’t reading comics eight hours a day. Millions and millions of kids weren’t listening to rap music eight hours a day. There’s something different going on here, and there’s a consensus —
THE COURT: The problem, Counsel, that’s a really bad example, the comics, because there is an entire exhibit in Glasgow where they barred comics in the entire country because somebody decided that comics were turning their youth against their parents and were causing them to engage and worship the supernatural and stuff.
So, I mean, I guess that was the point the plaintiffs were making is from the beginning of time, we’ve targeted things under some belief that it’s harming our youth, but doesn’t necessarily make it so.
But, go ahead.
That trailing “but, go ahead” is savage. I think I’d rather curl up in a ball and try to disappear in the middle of a courtroom than “go ahead” after that.
Florida also went with what they must have thought was their strongest argument: the authority of the U.S. Surgeon General. After all, if the nation’s top doctor says social media is addictive, who is a mere federal judge to question it?
But this appeal to authority ran straight into another of Judge Walker’s key points: expert opinions, even from high officials, need actual evidence behind them.
MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: The U.S. Surgeon General recognized them as addictive. Experts recognize them as addictive. The legislative staff analysis in this case was pretty thorough and cited a lot of —
THE COURT: The Surgeon General also said COVID was dangerous, but I get it. It doesn’t necessarily say — the U.S. Surgeon General, just because he says something doesn’t make it so.
The judge’s COVID example is… not great. COVID was (and remains) legitimately dangerous, supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. But his broader point about not blindly accepting authority claims stands. After all, this is the same office that once warned about the dangers of Pac-Man.
Judge Walker does a bit more odd COVID denialism in rejecting “the Surgeon General says it” argument a bit later:
But invoking the “it’s commonly known” — I mean, it was commonly known that masks would prevent, potentially, the spread of COVID, but apparently that was fake news. So, I mean, I don’t understand how the “commonly known” helps you.
I’m kinda hoping he’s using this example to mock the Florida government, given how mask-denialism is so common among the Florida government these days, even as the actual evidence has and continues to show that mask wearing does, in fact, limit the spread of COVID (not entirely, but significantly).
No matter what, though, it’s nice to see a judge who seems well aware of how moral panics work, and demanding actual evidence, rather than just buying these kinds of appeals to authority.
And, all of this matters legally. As Judge Walker notes, to pass the high bar of strict scrutiny, you have to show more than just handwaving about kids and social media, even getting Florida’s attorney to agree that a “loosey-goosey causal effect” wouldn’t pass strict scrutiny.
THE COURT: And by the way, “commonly known” certainly wouldn’t — if you are subject to strict scrutiny, that certainly wouldn’t be enough; right?
MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Agreed.
THE COURT: And you would even agree the sort of loosey-goosey causal effect under existing case law wouldn’t be enough for strict scrutiny; right?
MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: A direct causal link is required under Brown for strict scrutiny.
This exchange matters because it cuts to the heart of why these social media laws keep failing in court. It’s not enough to say “everyone knows social media is bad for kids.” It’s not enough to cite a few alarming studies. Under strict scrutiny, you need real evidence of direct harm and proof that your law actually addresses that harm in the least restrictive way possible.
But even if Florida could somehow meet the strict scrutiny standard (they can’t), there’s an even more fundamental problem with the law: it completely undermines the state’s supposed commitment to parental rights. Judge Walker’s exchange with Florida’s lawyer on this point was particularly revealing:
THE COURT: Well, we’ve empowered parents to control what books our kids read in school. Why is it far-fetched to empower parents and think they know best for their individual children about who they are engaging with socially on social media platforms?
MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Well, parents certainly have a role, but the key is these controls. And the controls have proven ineffective. So these platforms —
THE COURT: You are taking the control away. Because if I’ve got a 13-year-old child and I want him to — does my kid get to sign up if I want him to be able to sign up and have an account in a social media platform on Facebook?
MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: You can register for an account and a kid can use your account, and you can monitor them.
THE COURT: I don’t want to monitor them. Just like I want them to read the book about the two penguins raising an egg together. The two male penguins raising an egg together. I don’t want to sign up on my account. I want to have my own Facebook account. I want my kid — you’ve taken that choice away from me; right?
MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: I just think it’s an irrelevant issue because their — I mean, the degree of control that parents have is irrelevant. What’s —
THE COURT: The point, Counsel — and I don’t think it’s particularly far-fetched — is the State of Florida picks and chooses when they want the parents to be making the decision. And when it suits their purposes, they do; and when it doesn’t, they don’t.
But I’ve got it. Fair enough.
That reference to “the book about the two penguins raising an egg together” isn’t random. It’s about And Tango Makes Three, a children’s book that’s frequently targeted for bans (including in Florida). The judge is highlighting an obvious contradiction: Florida claims parents should have absolute authority over what books their kids read, but apparently can’t be trusted to decide if their 15-year-old is mature enough for Instagram.
The hearing was a couple of weeks ago, and while there was some light reporting on it, the full transcript tells a more important story. It shows how these social media moral panics are leading to exactly what moral panics always lead to: hasty, poorly thought-out laws that trample individual rights in the name of protecting children.
We’re seeing this pattern play out across the country. From Utah to California to Arkansas to New York to Florida, legislators are rushing to “do something” about social media, backed by nothing more than parental anxiety and cherry-picked studies. But as Judge Walker’s systematic dismantling of Florida’s arguments shows, these laws can’t survive actual constitutional scrutiny.
The irony is that in trying to protect children from the supposed dangers of social media, these laws are teaching them a different lesson entirely: that evidence doesn’t matter, that constitutional rights are negotiable, and that the solution to every perceived problem is a government ban. That’s probably not the civics lesson we want to be giving the next generation.
So kudos to Judge Walker for giving a much better civics lesson in response to this particular moral panic.
Filed Under: age verification, dungeons & dragons, evidence, florida, hb 3, mark walker, moral panic, protect the children, social media, surgeon general
Companies: ccia, netchoice
