Proposed Texas Bill Aims to Ban Social Media for Children Over Mental Health Concerns After State’s TikTok Ban

HARK! · Dec 10, 2022

A North Texas lawmaker filed a bill that would require all social media users to be 18 years of age to create an account.

The bill, HB 896, (pdf) which was proposed by state Rep. Jared Patterson, will force social media sites to verify a user’s age with photo ID and allow parents to request that their child’s account be deactivated.

Proposed Texas Bill Aims to Ban Social Media for Children Over Mental Health Concerns After State’s TikTok Ban

www.theepochtimes.com

I don't need the government's permission to exercise my constitutionally protected rights.

I am not obligated to identify myself to exercise my freedom of speech.

The law of the land does not grant the government any power to encroach on my unalienable, God given rights; because some parents have neglected their God given responsibility to raise their children.

Don't Panic · Dec 10, 2022

HARK! said:
A North Texas lawmaker filed a bill that would require all social media users to be 18 years of age to create an account.

The bill, HB 896, (pdf) which was proposed by state Rep. Jared Patterson, will force social media sites to verify a user’s age with photo ID and allow parents to request that their child’s account be deactivated.

Proposed Texas Bill Aims to Ban Social Media for Children Over Mental Health Concerns After State’s TikTok Ban

www.theepochtimes.com

I don't need the government's permission to exercise my constitutionally protected rights.

I am not obligated to identify myself to exercise my freedom of speech.

The law of the land does not grant the government any power to encroach on my unalienable, God given rights; because some parents have neglected their God given responsibility to raise their children.

Here you post another worthless article . A little thought and a better source and it should be obvious that this bill is not really serious, rather it is a Republican, in this case, virtue signally by introducing a bill that will go absolutely nowhere. Do you really think that a bill to require a minimum age of 18 with a photo ID presented to the social media company is in any way even worth discussing? You don't even need to come close to the constitution to laugh this one out the door. Get better news sources for your own sake.

Frisco State Rep. Files Bill to Ban Social Media for Minors, Requires Photo ID
HB896 would require a user to prove their age with a photo ID when signing up for social mediaAccording to the bill, social media platforms must require people to use an account to access the platform and those account holders must be at least 18 years of age. Their age, according to the bill, is verified by the following: "A social media platform shall verify the age of the account holder by requiring the account holder to provide a copy of the account holder's driver's license along with a second photo showing both the account holder and the driver's license in a manner that allows the social media company to verify the identity of the account holder."

Finally no one serious will read the Moonie Propaganda Epoch times since since it require personal info to see it.

Bradskii · Dec 10, 2022

HARK! said:
I am not obligated to identify myself to exercise my freedom of speech.

And I'm not about to pass on my personal email information to the Falun Gong just in order to to read such dross. Proposed by a Republican I might note.

public hermit · Dec 10, 2022

HARK! said:
I don't need the government's permission to exercise my constitutionally protected rights

But you do need the permission of the owner of the private company to participate on a social media platform.

Free speech has nothing to do with social media, but social media has everything to do with the glories of capitalism.

HARK! · Dec 10, 2022

public hermit said:
But you do need the permission of the owner of the private company to participate on a social media platform.

Free speech has nothing to do with social media, but social media has everything to do with the glories of capitalism.

...and when I start my own social media website; who is the government to tell me that I have to identify everyone who speaks on the the forum that I provided?

I'm not a policeman; and it's my understanding that even a policeman can't force someone to identify themselves, unless the police have reasonable suspicion they have, are in the act of, or are about to, commit a crime.

HARK! · Dec 10, 2022

Bradskii said:
And I'm not about to pass on my personal email information to the Falun Gong just in order to to read such dross. Proposed by a Republican I might note.

I've seen clips of the nuttiness that goes on at TikTok, on Youtube. I have not visited TikTok; but I doubt that one needs an account to visit.

If this is true; then it seems that the premise of this bill is even nuttier than the nuttiness that goes on at TikToK,

The 3 Stooges is more cerebral.

Bradskii · Dec 10, 2022

HARK! said:
I've seen clips of the nuttiness that goes on at TikTok, on Youtube. I have not visited TikTok; but I doubt that one needs an account to visit.

If this is true; then it seems that the premise of this bill is even nuttier than the nuttiness that goes on at TikToK,

Then treat it as such rather than use it as a polemic against the possible removal of your constitutional rights.

Pommer · Dec 10, 2022

HARK! said:
I've seen clips of the nuttiness that goes on at TikTok, on Youtube. I have not visited TikTok; but I doubt that one needs an account to visit.

If this is true; then it seems that the premise of this bill is even nuttier than the nuttiness that goes on at TikToK,

The 3 Stooges is more cerebral.

Yes, it turns out that having “free speech” means even speech that appeals to the lowbrow crowd.
Who knew?

HARK! · Dec 10, 2022

Bradskii said:
Then treat it as such rather than use it as a polemic against the possible removal of your constitutional rights.

That's a false dichotomy.

It's both.

HARK! · Dec 10, 2022

Pommer said:
Yes, it turns out that having “free speech” means even speech that appeals to the lowbrow crowd.
Who knew?

Shakespeare figured out the value, of appealing to an audience of diverse intellect, long ago.

public hermit · Dec 11, 2022

HARK! said:
and when I start my own social media website; who is the government to tell me that I have to identify everyone who speaks on the the forum that I provided?

Governments place restrictions on private businesses all the time. This is all new territory. Social media is a kind of wild west. I'm not sure how it will all pan out but I am sure there will be legislation related to it, hopefully for the good.

I have to be honest that I'm surprised you're against this. Isn't this proposed bill meant to protect children? This Republican is concerned about the adverse affect of social media on young users. It's not like it keeps adults from using it. If this bill is a slippery slope that will eventually affect your freedoms as an adult, then consistency says much of the hand-wringing and legislation by Republicans meant to protect children should be seen in the same light. Here I'm thinking about the proposed Texas bill for rating books according to age appropriateness.

It's inconsistent to want censoring for the sake of children and to not want censoring for the sake of children.

Texas lawmaker files bill to require ratings on school books: 'This isn't setting (books) on fire'

The bill would require publishers to rate books, similar to how movies are rated. A lawmaker said this would be easy for libraries to identify what's safe or unsafe for kids to read.

abc13.com

HARK! · Dec 11, 2022

public hermit said:
I have to be honest that I'm surprised you're against this. Isn't this proposed bill meant to protect children?

How does it protect children? Pushing unjust laws that erode our rights, are often presented under the guise of protecting children. I seek to protect future generations from being stripped of their unalienable rights.

As soon as I hear "do it for the children;" my defenses go up. If it is a just bill, one won't have to stand behind children for a defense. I don't fall for these tear jerking tactics from these baby kissers.

public hermit · Dec 11, 2022

HARK! said:
Pushing unjust laws that erode our rights

Is it unjust to place limits on those under 18? Minors don't have the same privileges as adults and for good reason.

I really don't care if minors can use social media, but I'm not convinced of your argument concerning rights. There all kinds of things minors can't do that adults can. If you could show the law would be misguided since there is no adverse affect on minors that might be convincing, but your current position seems like more fear over nothing and pearl clutching. It's like arguing that your freedoms are at risk because minors can't buy alcohol.

HARK! · Dec 11, 2022

public hermit said:
Is it unjust to place limits on those under 18? Minors don't have the same privileges as adults and for good reason.

It's unreasonable for the government to demand that a private website must demand my ID from anyone that they invite to join their site. Understand that this will not prevent minors from viewing the content on that site.

This is akin to saying that I must present my name, address, and DOB, to anyone who asks, in order to open my mouth in public, not because some child might hear; but because some child, without any parental supervision, might say something on his own, and then go harm himself.

Can it get any nuttier?

Rights are not privileges. It's up to the parents of those children to monitor what activities they engage in, and whether or not they have psychological problems.

Don't tell me that I need to forfeit my unalienable rights, because someone else's child might express himself before harming himself.

Desk trauma · Dec 11, 2022

HARK! said:
As soon as I hear "do it for the children;" my defenses go up.

Unless it’s the Saudi morality police confiscating rainbow colored items.

HARK! · Dec 11, 2022

Desk trauma said:
Unless it’s the Saudi morality police confiscating rainbow colored items.

Wut?

Desk trauma · Dec 11, 2022

HARK! said:
Wut?

You were very supportive of that.

ThatRobGuy · Dec 11, 2022

While I suspect this bill is being introduced as a virtue signal...

It'd be largely unenforceable, and a logistics nightmare...so I doubt it'll go anywhere.

And on a side note. The certain members of the GOP that may feel inclined push for things like this should be careful about their messaging if they wish to have a consistent platform to run on. If they keep blaming every societal ill on mental health, one of these days, some of their constituents may actually expect them to start increasing public funding for healthcare.

It also raises a different question. If restrictions are the appropriate course of action for "things that create an increased risk of harm to children", is that same rule going to apply next time there's a conversation about background checks and red flag laws?

Seems as if this proposed bill was a hastily thought-out "ready, fire, aim" mentality that gave zero thought to the implications & expectations it could create if it goes through (which it likely won't)

Desk trauma · Dec 11, 2022

ThatRobGuy said:
The certain members of the GOP that may feel inclined push for things like this should be careful about their messaging if they wish to have a consistent platform to run on.

That ship has sailed and sank with all hands.

Larniavc · Dec 11, 2022

HARK! said:
The law of the land does not grant the government any power to encroach on my unalienable, God given rights; because some parents have neglected their God given responsibility to raise their children.

For once I agree with you. The Republican habit of trying to limit personal freedoms is way out of hand. And so is the idiocy of their methods: how is this supposed to be enforced? Another example of a law maker completely out of touch with how the modern world works.

Proposed Texas Bill Aims to Ban Social Media for Children Over Mental Health Concerns After State’s TikTok Ban

שמע

Active Member

Frisco State Rep. Files Bill to Ban Social Media for Minors, Requires Photo ID​

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

social troglodyte

שמע

שמע

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

שמע

שמע

social troglodyte

שמע

social troglodyte

שמע

The pickles are up to something

שמע

The pickles are up to something

Part of the IT crowd

The pickles are up to something

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Similar threads

Frisco State Rep. Files Bill to Ban Social Media for Minors, Requires Photo ID