Florida Governor DeSantis Signs Online Verification Bill That Implements Digital ID Framework, Bans Children From Having Social Media

“HB 3: Online Protections for Minors” – which will be implemented beginning the first day of 2025 – lists the main issues the legislation is covering:

• Online Protections for Minors; 
• Requiring social media platforms to prohibit certain minors from creating new accounts;
• Requiring social media platforms to terminate certain accounts and provide additional options for termination of such accounts;
• Providing conditions under which social media platforms are required to prohibit certain minors from entering into contracts to become account holders;
• Authorizing the Department of Legal Affairs to bring actions under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for knowing or reckless violations;
• Authorizing the department to issue and enforce civil investigative demands under certain circumstances, etc.

The law specifically bans minors younger than 14 from having social media profiles, while teens under 16 must receive parental consent.

Reclaim The Net explains that ‘in order for the law to make sense, in technical terms, social platforms clearly must be able to digitally verify their users age/ID. And once this is done, those under 14 who already have accounts will have them terminated, the law mandates.’

The original bill that was passed by the state Senate outright banned kids younger than 16 from having a social media account, but was vetoed by DeSantis in February on the grounds that parental rights were not considered.

As usual opinions are split. Reclaim The Net reports:

---

As ever, there are coinciding and juxtaposed arguments in favor and against the law. They all purport to “care for the children” – but while supporters of the law say social media playground is a dangerous one, those opposing it see the harm as the right to anonymity online is removed and digital ID is pushed.

Interestingly, the proposals rely heavily on mental health arguments: the former to stress how harmful social platforms can be, in the words of DeSantis, “in a variety of ways” (anxiety, depression, both…) – while the latter play on the “isolation” card.

Namely, the fact that isolating people of any age from a social environment, albeit a virtual one, is harmful in and of itself. (One wonders, though, if those promoting this take on the law had the same sentiment about Covid restrictions and surveillance and the radical social isolation it imposed on EVERYONE).

Seemingly more substantial than the “forcing children into isolation” argument against the law is that it is simply not constitutional, specifically pertaining to the First Amendment and the right of parents vs. government(s).

---

This issue striking the 1st Amendment was raised by a number of groups, such as Florida Politics, noting that while the bill is well-intentioned it “poses challenges to the First Amendment rights guaranteed to all Americans, regardless of age,” they write. “The legislation directly violates the right to free speech by encroaching on the rights of younger users’ ability to access information and participate in online conversations. Young people will be denied the opportunity to engage in the online exchange of ideas and stay informed about current events that shape the world in which they are growing up.”

The bill does allow parents to regain some say by letting their children have social media accounts once they turn 14, but it still denies parents that authority before then. Regardless of the child’s age, we firmly support the authority of parents — not the state — in deciding what is best for their child. However, other First Amendment, data privacy, and equity concerns are associated with requiring social media platforms to acquire parent or legal guardian consent before allowing users to create and access accounts.

While Florida’s HB 3 aims to safeguard the well-being of young internet users, it — and similar bills in other states — will likely face legal challenges due to First Amendment concerns and the inability to operationalize at scale.

The group added

The Florida chapter for the ACLU also said that “HB 3 is a broad censorship law that stifles the freedom of expression online by requiring all users, including adults, to verify their age by providing age verification documentation before using existing social media accounts or creating new ones.”

If our lawmakers truly cared about the well-being of our children, they would be prioritizing expanding Medicaid access to struggling families, increasing school psychologists, ensuring access to affordable housing for families, and protecting families with minor children from facing eviction.

Kara Gross, legislative director of the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement

---

AUTHOR COMMENTARY

For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged.

Proverbs 28:2

I quote this passage a lot but it still bears constant notation because it applies here, too. With more flesh comes more sin, and more sin requires legislation and governance to wrangle it in.

The problem here is that parents need to be the ones setting the parameters and guidelines, not the government. Social media and the internet is a cesspool, and if I was a parent I definitely would not let my children have direct access to it for a long time. But, since parents don’t care anymore, and don’t bring their children up in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord,” (Ephesians 6:4) then the government has to trifle the liberties of the people since they won’t do proper judgment.

This goes back to what I’ve covered before and this “nanny state” the U.S. has become, and how the strong majority of Americans want it and depend on it, rather than actually doing right in the first place.

SEE: The United States’ Nanny State Idiocracy And How Liberty And Freedom Have Been Stripped Away

DeSantis has shown before that he loves to play the dictator role when given the chance, following in the footsteps comparable to George W. Bush, and will cease all sorts of rights and autonomy from people and businesses if the situation presents itself. Ultimately, this latest action feeds into the coming digital ID system. DeSantis may claim that he is against CBDCs, but then he does this which acts a precursor to the digital IDs needed to facilitate the CBDCs.

---

[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).

The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE