Today, TechFreedom filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to affirm a district court order blocking Florida’s HB 3, a law that restricts minors 15 and under from creating accounts on social media platforms with so-called addictive features. The district court found that HB 3 triggers only intermediate First Amendment scrutiny, while Florida argues that HB 3 does not trigger such scrutiny at all. TechFreedom’s brief explains why strict scrutiny applies.

“HB 3 is censorship dressed up as child protection,” said Corbin K. Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation at TechFreedom. “The statute singles out social media platforms, the most important forums for everyday people—and especially young people—to engage in speech and debate. It shuts most minors out of those forums, and erects age-verification barriers between adults and those forums in the process. This is classic speaker- and content-based regulation of speech, which triggers strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.”

“Florida has betrayed this nation’s First Amendment tradition,” Barthold continued. “Its approach to social media has been fearful, reflexive, and incoherent—but consistently unconstitutional. Just a few years ago, the state tried to force platforms to disseminate content harmful to children, including speech that—in the words of the Supreme Court—‘glorif[ies] rape’ or ‘encourage[s] teenage suicide.’ Now it has swung to the other extreme, seeking to shut most minors out of social media altogether. The former effort violated the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court recently ruled. This one does too.”

“In the end, Florida’s problem is with the power of speech itself,” Barthold concluded. “Minors spend time on social media because, when they’re there, they see speech they’re interested in seeing. This problem—if it’s a problem—is not for Florida to fix. Under the First Amendment, the strong effects of speech are an inherent part of speech—not a ground for regulation. The Eleventh Circuit should affirm the injunction and make clear that Florida cannot wall off its young people from civic debate.”

The case is CCIA v. Uthmeier, No. 25-11881 (11th Cir.).

###

Find this release on our website, and share it on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom:

TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

</>