US judge blocks Ohio Republicans’ “troublingly vague” social media law

Seems like a common sense action for an overly broad law that could be used to censor all manor of speech to "protect the children".

This is the best summary I could come up with:

"Foreclosing minors under sixteen from accessing all content on websites that the Act purports to cover, absent affirmative parental consent, is a breathtakingly blunt instrument for reducing social media's harm to children," US District Judge Algenon Marbley wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

NetChoice is separately challenging Florida and Texas state laws that regulate social networks in a First Amendment case that the US Supreme Court agreed to hear.

"The Act provides an eleven-factor list that the Attorney General or a court may use to determine if a website is indeed covered, which includes malleable and broad-ranging considerations like '[d]esign elements' and '[l]anguage.'

"The negative effects that social media sites and apps have on our children's mental health have been well documented, and this law was one way to empower parents to have a role in their kids' digital lives," DeWine said.

In a statement praising the judge's ruling, NetChoice said the Ohio law "violates constitutional rights and rips away a parent's authority to care for their child as they find appropriate."

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost hasn't submitted a written response to the NetChoice lawsuit yet, but the state made arguments during a conference on January 8.

The original article contains 707 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Oh but Ohio does have a compelling interest. That interest is in completely suppressing its constituents and spitting in our faces constantly. It’s basically the only thing our legislature seems capable of, well unless we consider breaking the law to do it a different thing.