DeSantis signs Florida ban on kids using social media.

A 17 yr old 'child' is legally allowed to drive. You want to punish the parent if the kid has an accident? The teen was charged with reckless driving.

 

If you say so. I guess DeSantis falls somewhere between fascists and commies, since they both share the same authoritarian characteristics.

DeSantis = Mini Mussolini.

 

This is circular logic. You're saying this behavior is acceptable to you because that is what the law says, and there are regulations around it. But then you're opposing this bill because it creates laws and regulations. It's a logic fail, and you're making his point for him without realizing it.

 

Coming from people who wanted to remove opposition candidates off the ballot illegally, I think one side here is closer to being a "Mini Mussolini" than the other. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

Um...nope. I do not want parents charged if a legally licensed driver has an accident. Why do you want that? It has literally nothing do do with internet bans.

Um..... what? You have an annoying habit of misrepresenting other posters.

Then stop.

 

Apparently the parents are not doing their job which is why we have a mental health crisis among the nations youth.

This law is much less authoritarian than the COVID lockdowns and will be much more beneficial for the American people.

 

Want to know how I know this entire thread is just partisan drivel by pro_line_fl?

https://sd09.senate.ca.gov/news/202...California bill would,of a parent or guardian.


Not a flipping peep.

Not a single comment.

Not even an attempt at consistency.

 

Agreed. This is an example of the "nanny state" the right opposes. Parents who allow children below high school age to have smart cell phones are doing the wrong thing. There are cell phones without internet access available and they are actually pretty cheap.

 

Yes but it is still an example of nanny state government. This is beyond the appropriate role for government at any level. Parents can buy the kids a flip phone so they can talk to friends. No internet available.

 

Its not just cell phones, its anything with internet access, - cell phones, laptops, tablets, desktops, TVs etc. But since cell phone is most commonly used, the parents could limit usage by getting kids phones with no access.

 

I can rig a computer to disallow access to social media. TV's with browsers? Whew. I may have one but have never activated such a feature since I can't stream. I could give up streaming if it helped my children. Nevertheless it is a parental responsibility, not a governmental one.

 

Why do you think it should be illegal? You do realize you can be for the legality of something without saying you think it is awesome, right?

 

But why should it be illegal?

 

Does this mean Florida should outlaw kids from having phones, even if their parents are fine with them having one or want them to have one?

 

I'm just going to sit here and bask in the supreme irony that you are trying to compare yourself to John the Baptist when you were also one of the people mocking the idea of eating bugs.

 

Well I'm not keen on any bugs myself I'm not sure that I have ever mocked the idea.

Did you have anything relevant to say addressing the content of my post or are you just going to make me the topic again?

 

Lol, dude, I'm just poking fun. Relax. But yes, you did mock the idea. And I'm sure you know that John the Baptist subsisted on bugs and honey. I've said several things about the topic. I didn't realize brief, playful asides were such a source of contention.

 

Because when it comes to kids, stringent oversight needs to happen on public forums to make sure they are not exposed to people who will target them. If you don’t want a ban, good for you, then offer an alternative that will ensure the safety of kids rather than simply shift responsibility around when, predictably, bad things happen.

 

Why do you think that parents shouldn't have responsibility here?

 

Not a parent huh?

 

Not able to answer the question, huh?

 

Answering a question to someone who can’t understand the answer is pointless isn’t it?

 

All it shows is that you have no answer. Thank you for confirming.

 

Sure thing he who’s never been a parent but talks like he knows what parental responsibility is

 

There are many, many parents who support individual liberty and don't need a nanny state to do their parenting for them. Your excuse doesn't fly. But I understand why you feel the need to silence people instead of engaging in actual debate and discussion. Because you have jack **** to defend your position.