[iteygib]

Those aren't factual though, those are one just one side of an opinionated argument. Social media can also be argued to have positive values. IE, I would argue that most kids use social media not because of being addicted, but because they find and form new types of communities:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594763/#:~:text=Social...

Given it's Florida and the political leanings of it's governor, I would argue the law is more in line with CCP/Communist values: attempt to disrupt the communication networks of a demographic that is highly against you.

[anon373839]

This is one of those times when legal English sounds like everyday English, but isn't. In this context, "factual" doesn't mean "proven true", but rather "of the category of issues that are factual in nature" (instead of legal in nature). The point here is that the factual bases Florida will offer in support of there being a compelling governmental interest are somewhat different (and probably better substantiated) than the factual bases California gave in Brown, for example.

The reason this matters is that the precedential effect of a prior opinion such as Brown depends on how similar the underlying facts are to the present dispute. If a court wants to go in a different direction, it will usually prefer not to overturn the previous opinion, but rather to say that it doesn't apply here because the facts are different.

[bumby]

According to Jonathan Haidt's research, most teens would prefer to not be on social media because they recognize the toxicity of it but feel compelled to be on it because they have FOMO.