The Florida Roundup - A social media ban for minors, Florida sends more troops to Texas, State Supreme Court tackles abortion ballot measure

Episode Date: February 9, 2024

This week on The Florida Roundup, we talk about a proposal to prohibit children 16 and under from creating social media accounts with the bill's House sponsor (04:25) and then an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (13:20). After that, we turn to a reporter in El Paso, Texas for more on how Florida’s National and State Guards are being used at the U.S. Southern border (32:41). Later, WLRN’s health reporter breaks down this week’s Florida Supreme Court hearings over the abortion ballot measure (37:14) and then we round up education stories from the week (43:50). And finally, Netflix subscribers in Florida brace for a new tax (46:40).

This is the Florida Roundup. I'm Tom Hudson. Thanks for being along with us. Let's start by taking a random scroll through social media. If your eyes start shaking suddenly, throw your phone as far as possible. Terrifying facts. This is TikTok, which has resisted the label social media. Instead, it wants to be thought of as an entertainment platform. Fortnite changed snipers is something a lot of people are struggling with them. Video after video after video. Some highly produced, others more low-tech. My mother forced me to play hide-and-seek every night at 9. Tonight, it wasn't a game. TikTok users spend almost an hour a day on average scrolling and scrolling and

scrolling through videos. And each time users open the app, they spend almost seven minutes looking through posts. TikTok is one of the most popular platforms for teenagers. Almost two thirds of 13 to 17 year olds use TikTok in a survey from Pew Research Center last year. Over half of teens say they use Snapchat and Instagram as well and one in five teens say they are on TikTok or YouTube quote almost constantly. Many kids in Florida would not be able to sign up for a social media account under legislation gathering bipartisan support among state lawmakers.

How young is too young to be on social media? Email us radio at thefloridaroundup.org or call 305-995-1800. I got my first phone in middle school and I got Snapchat immediately. Laura Mello is from Orlando. She's 20 years old now. It definitely affects me. Sometimes I find myself in a like, it's like a mind trap. You're just scrolling and it's a very numbing feeling. And you're just scrolling and you don't realize that hours have passed by. So it's really damaging to the individuals like mental health.

The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee approved a proposal this week that would prevent minors under the age of 16 from having social media accounts. Now this bill is similar to the House bill that recently passed. Governor Ron DeSantis has raised legal questions about the breadth of the measure. Some tech industry companies also have contended the bill would violate First Amendment rights. Florida Senate President Republican Kathleen Pasadena is a supporter, though. Whenever someone doesn't like a bill, they say, oh, it's unconstitutional. You know, I'm not the courts. I don't have the opportunity to make that decision.

Similar bills in other states have faced legal pushback, but Republican Senator Erin Graw thinks she's taking a narrow approach by targeting features that apps like Snapchat, TikTok, and Instagram use to appeal to children, features she calls, quote, addictive, harmful, or deceptive. There are some things that are similar. This legislation, we've also attempted to learn from the mistakes of those that go before you and see what it is that has caused a court to strike down a bill or language like this in other states. The bill has found bipartisan support. House Minority Leader Democrat Frentice Driscoll voted for it, even though she has some concerns about how it would be enforced if it becomes law. We never really got answers about which platforms were being targeted. We never

really got clear answers about how the bill would be enforceable. The bills would prevent minors under the age of 16 from creating accounts. They would require social media platforms to terminate existing accounts that are reasonably known by the platforms to be held by minors younger than 16 and would allow parents to request that minors accounts be terminated. Meta, that's the parent company of platforms like Facebook and Instagram, and other tech industry groups have criticized the proposal and warned about a court challenge. So how young is too young in Florida to have a TikTok account or swipe through Instagram? Does there need to be more regulation of social media? And what's your social media diet like? How about your kids or your grandkids? Call now 305-995-1800,

305-995-1800, or email us radio at thefloridaroundup.org. Tyler Saroy is the sponsor of the legislation in the Florida House. He's a Republican representing parts of Brevard County. Representative, thanks for your time today and for joining our conversation. Why do you think your bill is not unconstitutional? Why do you think it'll pass muster? First of all, we're not focused on content. You know, I think that that's a very important distinction to make. This bill is not about the content that is on these platforms. This bill is on addictive features, the things that are intentionally designed to produce basically a dopamine hit in our kids. One of my colleagues referred to it as a digital fentanyl. So the bill is not about content. It's about features and features that we now understand are intentionally designed to capture our kids' attention. Let's talk about some

of those features because the bill defines a social media platform as one that quote, utilizes addictive, harmful, or deceptive design features. So is the bill saying that those design features are legal? So what the bill is, is defining is the, the features that are problematic, the features that are addictive in nature. Auto-scroll, for example, autoplay, the concept of push notifications. You know, there are things that are being designed and intentionally deployed to modify the way that our kids behave, to take advantage of child development and capturing their and holding their attention. So our bill, you know, with our Senate colleagues is still a work in progress. I think we're going to drill down the language even further.

But our goal here is to focus on the addictive nature of these features. Why not look to outlaw those features or somehow regulate those features themselves as opposed to the age restriction strategy that you've taken? Well, you know, I think that we have to recognize that social media is a tool that exists and it is very prevalent in our society. This legislation is not about whether social media is good or bad, but what we are working to do is to protect our youth from platforms that we now understand are harmful. We're seeing soaring suicide rates. We're seeing increased incidents of self-harm. Hospital admissions for self-harm are increasing. And we understand based on testimony that we received here in Tallahassee that on our present course, it's going to be normal for American girls to suffer from depression.

You know, so that is something that I find alarming and it doesn't have to be that way. And all of the data that we have points to social media as being a main contributor. So what we want to do is make sure that our minors are protected. And there's precedent for that in our law. When you look at things like alcohol and tobacco sales, casino gaming, getting a tattoo, I'm not here to say that any of those things are good or bad. But what we are saying is that any of those things are good or bad, but what we are saying is there are some things that are just not developmentally appropriate for children. Some of those features you've identified in the legislation,

and you just mentioned here, autoplay features, infinite scroll, for instance, push notifications, some of those you can opt out of as a user. Why isn't that opting out enough? Well, because we've heard from parents and we've heard from, you know, young people that we've talked to, these platforms and these controls are very complicated to keep up with. You know, if you're a parent that is not tech savvy, you know, you may have seven or eight different social media platforms that you're trying to keep up with a variety of different settings related to privacy and to access. So I think that what we're doing here is recognizing that the magnitude of this problem and the harm that these platforms are doing to our youth is basically beyond a lot of parents' ability, a lot of families' ability to be able to step

in and handle it. So I think that there's a role for government to play here in terms of creating some guardrails for safety. One of those guardrails under your legislation, Representative, would require those social media apps to disclose to users if it uses what the bill calls addictive design or deceptive patterns. Is that like a warning on a pack of cigarettes? I think so. And I think that a lot of parallels can be made to the history of public policy as it relates to big tobacco. And I think that that's a good informative lens to look at this issue through. These social media platforms know what they are doing is wrong. They know the impact that is having on our children. Do you think social media today represents the public health dangers of tobacco a generation ago? Well, I think when you see increasing suicide rates in our children, increasing rates of self

harm, when psychologists are telling us that depression is becoming a normal thing among American women, when you see increased rates of bipolar disorder and self-esteem and bondage issues. And all of that data points back to social media as being a contributor to those problems. Yes, I do believe that it is a significant issue for us to address, particularly for the health of our kids. How do you envision enforcement of your legislation if it becomes law? So the bill does two things. First, it empowers the Florida Attorney General

to pursue unfair and deceptive trade practices against companies that are violating the law. And then the thing the bill provides for is for parents to bring a cause of action, a lawsuit against a social media company that has unlawfully enrolled a minor child. And those are the two things that we have in place for enforcement. Now, I would add that I'm a believer in the free market. And I think if this bill establishes what we find in Florida to be an acceptable framework for the safety of our children, I think that these companies have the ability to respond, the market will respond, and they can certainly offer platforms that do not deploy addictive features, that do not take advantage of our children in their years of

development. And I'm optimistic that the market can respond in that fashion if the platforms choose to do so. Representative, let me ask you about the marketplace for social media, because in the way back machine in the 1990s, when the internet was just getting speed and social media hadn't been thought of yet, the federal government passed a law that essentially has allowed internet platforms to not be legally responsible for messages that users post. Do you think that needs to be revisited? I do. This bill in Florida, I believe, is the tip of the spear in terms of that reappraisal. Isn't, though, this a federal issue, given that these communications are happening across

state lines? Well, I just don't have a high degree of confidence that Congress is going to act. You know, this is a situation. I would love to see Congress get involved. You know, from that congressional hearing, the social media companies we had the other day, it sounds like their committee has proposed some really good legislation. It's unfortunate that it hasn't moved in Congress. But you're seeing states now starting to act in this space. And Florida, over the next couple of weeks, we're going to put our law out there for people to see what we can do to keep our children safe.

Representative Tyler Saroy from Brevard County, a Republican. Representative Saroy, thank you for spending your time with us. Thank you for having me. Paul sent us this email. Radio at the Florida Roundup dot org is that address. Paul wrote, I call social media saccharine socialization. Like real saccharine, Paul writes, social media is at best a partial replacement for the real thing.

The amount of learning we can glean from our social from our digital socialization that is applicable to our real life analog lives is notably limited. Because of this, Paul says, social media should be relegated as a tool that is inferior to face-to-face real-world interactions. Well, let's talk about more of social media. Erin McKay is along with us. Erin, I'll ask you to unmute yourself there as you're joining us via Zoom from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It's a digital rights organization. Aaron, thanks for your time and welcome to the program. Good morning. Thank you, Tom.

Is the foundation opposed to this kind of measure that Florida lawmakers are considering? Yes, we're opposed because fundamentally what this does is it deprives children of access to probably the most diverse platform for users to engage in speech and to learn about the world around us, as well as it has a consequence of requiring verification of all adults, their age and their identifying information to access social media. So it affects not just children, but all adults. And the Supreme Court and federal courts across the country have routinely held that this type of scheme that requires everyone to pass through sort of an age verification gate is unconstitutional because you can't put those types of restrictions on adults and children's ability to access the internet. Is there a way to create technology that requires age verification for folks that are younger than 16 years old? There's no way to do that that I'm aware of in terms of if you're trying to segment

a portion of the population based on their age, everyone has to pass through that gate. of the population based on their age, everyone has to pass through that gate. So there's no technology I'm aware of that can sort of somehow magically divine the age of Internet users who are minors, but then not have to force adults to make those similar sort of verification and turnover of personal information. The first piece that you mentioned there, opposition, was depriving access of these young students to social media. Representative Soroy, you just heard him there, thinks that the bill can withstand at least the First Amendment challenges because it's not about content. It's about what's your response there, Aaron? Well, that's like saying a bill that bans access to movie theaters for anyone under 16 or bans access to bookstores

for anyone under 16 is not about the content of the movies or the books. This is fundamentally about the content and those sort of facial sort of designs of a law courts will easily see past that. And I think what's curious about this is the purported design features that they're trying to focus on involving endless scroll or the interactive nature. The bill curiously exempts streaming media like Netflix and Disney+, which can unendingly sort of present media to children. It also exempts online gaming platforms and systems, which have various notifications and interactive natures designed to keep people on the platform. So I don't, it's not to say that these concerns about individuals being harmed online are

unfounded. It's hard to square the desire to protect those children from harm with some of the carve-outs in this bill. What is the foundation on positions like autoplay and infinite scroll? Are they seen as harmful and deceptive as the legislation describes them here in florida i think there there can be unique um interfaces that potentially can be uh harmful sort of under a consumer protection theory but once you start talking about just like the the basic design and features that we all use for a variety of purpose um those generally aren't sort of subject

to that sort of thinking and legal theory, because ultimately those design features. It doesn't mean that they're not harmful, though, just because, you know, I mean, for decades, we didn't think cigarettes were harmful. Sure. But what you're talking about is the delivery of content, of speech. And so it's akin to saying that the newspapers design its determination about what goes on the front page how big the the newspapers you know picture on a1 is is a harmful design picture because the the content itself is harmful um and so or distressing or to children and so to it's it's sort of saying you know know, the representative talked about like cigarettes and drinking alcohol and access to drugs. All of that is conduct, right?

All of that is harmful conduct. And ultimately what this bill is targeting is content and its users content, including children's content. We are talking about social media legislation in Florida with Adam McKay. Am I pronouncing your last name correctly, Adam? I'm sorry, Aaron? Aaron Mackey. Mackey. I got them both wrong on that instance.

Aaron Mackey is with us, Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization. You can join our conversation. We've got some phone calls lined up here, Aaron. 305-995-1800 is that phone number. 305-995-1800. You can also send us an email, radio at thefloridaroundup.org.

Radio at thefloridaroundup.org. Aaron, you want to stick around for some phone calls after we take a quick break here coming up in a few moments? Absolutely. Yeah, great, because we want to hear from you. After all, this kind of program is the original social media. This kind of program is the original social media. Before TikTok, before an infinite scroll, before autoplay, there was live conversation on your radio. And we're proud to do it here at Florida Public Radio. 305-995-1800 or radio at thefloridaroundup.org.

We'll talk more about this social media legislation that is making its way now through the Florida Senate. It was passed out of the Florida House last week. Governor Ron DeSantis has raised some concern about what he calls the breadth of this legislation, but it has been finding some bipartisan support amongst Florida lawmakers. 305-995-1800, 305-995-1800. Going to get to as many as your phone calls coming up in just a moment. You are listening to the Florida Round many as your phone calls coming up in just a moment. You are listening to the Florida Roundup from your Florida Public Radio station.

This is the Florida Roundup. I'm Tom Hudson. Next week on our program, a new law took effect a year ago that requires many public unions here in the Sunshine State to have at least 60% of its members pay dues. And if not, the union runs the risk of losing its bargaining rights. A new investigation by our partner station WLRN in Miami finds that tens of thousands of Florida union workers have lost their collective bargaining rights, and more will. Are you in a public union, like a teacher's union, working at a 911 call center, maybe doing administrative work for a

local government? Do you pay union dues? And what do you know about your collective bargaining status under this new law? You can email us now, radio at thefloridaroundup.org, radio at thefloridaroundup.org, and we may share your story next week. Now, let's get back to social media and Florida children. New legislation would ban social media platforms from allowing kids under 16 years old to sign up for an account. Mayelle Perkins is 19 years old and from Orlando. My parents were kind of strict. So I didn't get Instagram until I was 14,

but then I got taken away. And then I was allowed to have it again at 16. Snapchat I wasn't allowed to have until I was a freshman in high school. They didn't want me comparing myself to other people online. Salisa Bly is from Navarre and is 18 now. She first signed up for Snapchat when she was 12 years old and admits that was probably too young. They should be more adamant about the age requirement thing. Like I know a lot of apps already have that, but it's really just you press a button saying, yes, I am this age, which can be

bypassed by anybody. So I think there should probably be something more, I don't say something more aggressive, but something to prevent children to be able, 12 year olds like I was, to be able to get apps like that. Ahmad Lamidi is from Nigeria. He's a student at the University of South Florida in Tampa. He thinks 16 to have a social media account is pretty old. I think I was 13 when I first started using social media, and currently I'm 19. I feel like at least 10 years old.

I feel like that's a good minimum to set for age requirements, that's all I'd say. David sent us this email writing, if the Florida legislature wants to protect the youth, how about some common sense gun regulations? 305-995-1800. Aaron Mackey is still with us with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization. Aaron, should there be a minimum age for social media platforms in the United States? Well, I think the users and platforms and parents should be deciding when is it appropriate for someone to join a particular social media platform. And we already have federal laws like the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act that say if you're going to market your product to a child under the age of 13, you have to get affirmative consent before you collect

information about them. So we already sort of have a guideline around, you know, young children, preteens. And so I think we sort of already have that federal standard. And so then the question becomes, you know, do we need to do something more for like teens themselves before they hit 18? something more for like teens themselves before they hit 18. Yeah. Let's hear from some Floridians listening in. Heather, we're going to ask Heather from West Palm Beach to join the conversation. Heather, you are on the radio. Go ahead. Hi there. I'm a family therapist. I work with adolescents and parents here in South Florida. And I constantly hear about the implications of the social media apps. And to Aaron's point, it is a conduct issue, not just a content issue. Because what we see is the addictive nature of these apps.

We see that parents don't feel like they have any sort of control or any sort of ability to regulate. There's all sorts of deceptive practices where, you know, the kids can just be on and it is a conduct that happens, that sort of, that constant scrolling, all of that. And then we see those rates of depression and suicide. I see the implications on a daily basis and parents don't have the tools to, it's just so overwhelming and it's out of our hands. And I'm someone who does not support Ron DeSantis

and all of the Republican legislation happening in Florida, but I do believe that this is so important for the mental health, especially since post-COVID, the mental health of our adolescents and our young children and teenagers. Parents need more tools. If the parents wanted to bypass it, they could, and they could help their kids get on that. Heather, I appreciate you lending your voice to this conversation.

Erin, what do you make of Heather, the therapist's perspective there from West Palm Beach? Yeah, thanks, Heather. I agree that people have been harmed and that there are problems with what children have. The question is, what can a government do about it? And unfortunately, the Florida effort that's on the table is not going to help, and it's also not going to be enforced because it will be struck down as violating the First Amendment. I think what we need to do is actually think about how do we actually help children? Can we provide, can the state of Florida provide more resources to engage with social media education for both adults and children that helps demystify some of these settings and these problems? Can we provide more public resources for their mental health, whether that's basic education?

Would the industry be interested in contributing to that effort, Aaron? I'm not a part of the industry, right? We're not the companies. Understood. But I'm sure if you ask them, they probably would. But I think all of those efforts are essential. And just, you know, I do agree that, Heather, that there are legitimate concerns here and people, children are being harmed. The question is, is this going to actually help them and will it actually be enforced? Let's go to Fort Pierce, where Randy has been very patient in listening in. Randy, you are on the radio. Go ahead. Well, thank you. I agree with Aaron. This is a First Amendment violation court case in the making.

There's other things that can be done. For instance, when someone is on one of those apps, it could force them after, say, an hour to log out and then log back in there can be warning screens a third-party app developer for instance could uh pair up with one of these applications and a little pop-up comes up and says hey you've been on this for over you know an hour don't you think you could be doing something else you know and that's something that if that app does exist or could exist that's something that parents you know flor an hour. Don't you think you could be doing something else? You know, and that's something that if that app does exist or could exist, that's something that parents, you know, Florida's all about parental rights apparently lately. And I think that parents need to know

what these apps are, delete them off their kid's phone if they see them, if they don't want them on those apps. Just anything except making a law that I know is going to get struck down like Aaron is talking about. It's just a court case in the making. David, some interesting perspective there from West Palm Beach. Thank you. I'm sorry, Randy, thank you for calling from Fort Pierce there. Aaron, some interesting ideas from Randy, some of which are, you know, one can deploy right now, maybe not through the social media apps, but I know for our devices, for instance, we can set up certain, you know, self-regulation that, hey, you know, watch your screen time and those kinds of things. Yeah, so those are great tools. And then I think in terms of like how you could go further is you

could have support for federal laws that allow for interoperability, that allow for, say, a third party software service to basically take over someone's Facebook or Instagram and be used by parents to sort of monitor and filter that device in the ways that Randy suggested. And so there's an example of a law that could be passed by Congress that wouldn't offend the First Amendment issues that we've been discussing and would empower parents to make choices more directly instead of the state setting this sort of default. Aaron, let me understand that a little bit more. So this idea would have some other company other than, say, Facebook come in and offer a parent kind of a gateway technology that their child's Instagram account would connect through and allow the parent to be the gatekeeper? Yeah. Or, or to set some, some, some rules on this. And so we saw this right in the, in the nineties when, when we had just, just sort of

the internet and we didn't have sort of the social media apps, but there were a lot of companies that sold internet filtering tools to parents. Right. And so this would be the same thing, except it would be be allowed to sort of interact more directly and interoperate with a social media service. Randy's idea about, you know, parents also just deleting the app from their children's phones. Randy, I don't know how old you are, but maybe you don't have a middle school or high school these days. But the social pressure to be on social media is intense for teenagers, no doubt. Another phone call here. David has been listening in in West Palm Beach. David, go ahead. You are on the radio. That's me. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Wonderful. In any case, first of all, these apps are not just addictive to children. We have to realize

they are addictive to us as adults as well as children. I assume most of the people that are listening now are probably on a screen at this moment or on a screen most of the day. Number two is I don't think that this is really a government issue, mainly because there are laws against the drug, using drugs, and children can't smoke cigarettes, et cetera, et cetera. How effective are those laws? My belief is that this is mostly a parental issue that, as difficult as it may be, it's for parents to somehow limit and regulate as best they can the use of social media. It's very difficult, yes, for the government to make regulations that will limit the amount of time that children spend or adults spend on social media. Yeah. David, thanks for sharing your thoughts there from West Palm Beach.

Ann sent us this email. Ann asks, can you please tell me how age verification works, given that someone could easily lie about their birth date? Aaron, how about that? We heard that from a number of people as we went out and spoke about their social media usage. Yeah. So, I mean, I think that's sort of the lowest level of age verification. That's like age attestation where like, you know, when you sign up for Facebook right now, it just asks you to like enter into a box what your age is. But the real age verification that's required by this law requires people to turn over personal identifying information that they can use to verify. So

things like government issued identification, and not in this legislation, but in other proposals we've seen, we've seen basically like, you know, biometric information, basically like looking at your face and trying to determine your age based on your face, which has technical issues, but ultimately requires the same sort of thing, which is the disclosure of personal information that is used to verify. But we have that kind of verification if you're going to try to buy a bottle of rum, for instance, the clerk can ask you for a government issued ID. Yeah. So again, that's to engage in some conduct, which the state has a lot of police power to regulate. And that has, you know, harm as a result of conduct. When you have this age gate,

what you're doing is you're requiring everybody to turn over ID to enter the bookstore. So the adults have to prove that who they are just to enter the bookstore or the movie theater or just to get on social media. I want to squeeze in one more caller. Susan has been patient in Jacksonville. Go ahead, Susan, you were on the radio. Yes. I wanted to echo what other people said about banning social media use because it seems like what the legislators are doing about other things, banning things rather than teaching kids how to use them properly. So I'm definitely vehemently opposed to this. And I'm also worried about giving my government ID to a social media company, even though supposedly they have to destroy it right away.

Yeah, you walk in and buy alcohol, but they don't make a photocopy of it like they would. So, yeah, I hope they don't pass this thing. It's a horrible bill. I think some protections are needed, like logarithms that promote bad behavior or body shaming. We should do something about that. Completely banning people from using social media seems like a terrible idea, just like banning books is a terrible idea. Susan, I appreciate you lending your voice to the conversation here on The Roundup. Great to hear from you. Thanks. We're going to leave it there. Aaron Mackey is with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Aaron, you've been very gracious with your time. Appreciate the conversation and the point of view. Thanks, Tom. You too. Take care. You are listening to The Florida Roundup from your Florida Public Radio station. This week, both of Florida's U.S.

senators voted against a negotiated immigration reform bill focused on the southern border. The bill failed to get enough support to move forward on Capitol Hill, and it comes as immigration and border security has become one of the top issues for voters, including Floridians. Despite dropping out of the presidential race, Governor DeSantis continues to insert himself and Floridians in the border issue. Encounters with migrants at the southern border hit a new record in December, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Earlier this month, the governor announced he was making members of the Florida State Guard available to Texas, which is in a dispute with the federal government over undocumented immigrants entering the country. Texas Governor Greg Abbott continues to battle the Biden administration,

even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled federal agents can remove razor wire that Texas put at the border. Here's Governor DeSantis last week. If Texas is helping to erect barriers, putting up razor wire, doing other things to keep illegal aliens out, I want to be helpful with them doing that. I don't want to be part of the federal government trying to tear down these barriers and let more people in illegally. Florida Guard Director Mark Thiem says the surge in immigration in Texas has ramifications for Florida. The dangers of the border crisis do not stop at state lines and are far too great for any one state to ignore or to overcome. William Aguilar is with us now. He is a reporter with the Texas Newsroom based in El Paso.

Julian, welcome to our program and thanks for being along with us. This all centers around Operation Lone Star. It's the name of the effort by the state of Texas along the border with Mexico. What's the intended goal of that program? Sure, and thank you for having me on. So Operation Lone Star was initiated by Governor Greg Abbott in March of 2021, shortly after President Biden took office, or about three or about a month out from the three year anniversary of that. And he was very specific

when he launched it and said, look, this is to counter the Biden administration's quote unquote, you know, open border policies. So it's sent thousands of Texas National Guard and thousands of Texas DPS troopers to the border, mainly concentrated there in the area near Eagle Pass in Maverick County down to Brownsville. Although there are there is, you know, quite a quite a significant presence when there is a surge out here in West Texas. Y'all got to remember that the Texas Mexico borderexico border is 1,754 miles. It's a good long line. Yeah, exactly. So, and you know, these folks, I mean, we're looking at a price tag now of more than $10 billion in about three years. The legislature that just gaveled out late last year

appropriated another $5.1 billion over the next two years for border security, most of which will go to Operation Lone Star. So that's state money there in the state of Texas.1 billion over the next two years for border security, most of which will go to Operation Lone Star. So that's state money there in the state of Texas. Florida is among the few states that have deployed members of law enforcement, including the State Guard announced last week. What kinds of duties do those out-of-state law enforcement officers have in Texas? Sure. So one of the bills the governor signed this last legislative session was an interstate compact that would, you know, not usurp federal authority, but allow states to sort of share information gathering and intelligence to secure the border. You know, I reached out to the governor's office for clarity. I hadn't heard back on that, but I'm assuming that they will follow Texas's lead.

You know, I listened to y'all's governor's press conference where, you know, he said they're going to go down there and they're going to help with construction of the border barriers. I mean, I'm sure everybody that's been following this has seen the razor wire and, you know, the old trailers that are stacked up there. So it sounds like they're in a supportive role. Texas National Guard and DPS, they do have arresting authority now because the governor has ordered these folks to to arrest migrants on state trespassing charges, you know, not immigration charges, but state trespassing charges. So do these officers from out of state have those same police powers? You know, that's that's that's a very, very good question. I've been I've been trying to get some specificity. To all fairness, I only reached out to the governor's office this morning on that specific question. But, you know, in practice, it sounds like they've had some folks from out of state here anyway, which has caused a lot of concern.

You know, they don't know Texas. They don't know the laws. They don't know the immigrant communities. So Texas is definitely taking the lead on this. And I think the folks coming in from out of state are in a supportive role, but it's still sort of raising some eyebrows. Julian, yeah, thank you for your time. We're up on the clock here. Julian Aguilar, a reporter with the Texas Newsroom based in El Paso. Thanks for that important perspective and those details out of Texas, Julian. Appreciate it. Thank you. We've got more to come.

You're listening to the Florida Roundup from your Florida Public Radio station. This is the Florida Roundup. I'm Tom Hudson. Thanks for being along with us this week. Let's get you caught up on some news from around the state of Florida. There's another abortion question that went before the state Supreme Court this week. Let's get you caught up on some news from around the state of Florida. There's another abortion question that went before the state Supreme Court this week. The high court needs to decide if the proposed language for a ballot question about abortion rights passes muster. If it does, it would be Amendment 4 on the ballot this fall. Now, the state does not think that the

wording is clear enough, and it wants the justices to keep the question off the ballot in November. All rise. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. The Supreme Court of Florida is now in session. The court heard oral arguments on Wednesday. Nathan Forrester represents the state of Florida. The language of the amendment itself is of such elasticity that an enormously wide range of meetings will attach to it and voters will not actually understand what they're voting for. Chief Justice Carlos Munoz countered that may be an impossible standard. All these things that are supposedly, you know, up in the air about this, which I agree are going to have to be worked out over time if this were to become part of the Constitution. I mean, there's no possible way that a summary could tick through all these different variables

and possible implications and everything. Courtney Brewer represents the amendment's sponsor. She argued the summary of the amendment that will appear on ballots is very clear. I don't know how an amendment could better communicate its chief purpose via a summary than by putting the language of the amendment in the summary. The voters will have that language in the ballot box with them.

Veronica Zargovia is the health care reporter for our partner station WLRN in Miami. Veronica, this term viability, that word came up during the hearing this week. Help us understand why. It's written into Amendment 4. It's a word that doctors have said it means when a fetus can survive outside of the womb, but that might vary, and it's estimated to be somewhere between 23 and 24 weeks of pregnancy. There are justices who asked, would that maybe mean, could it be interpreted to be nine months of pregnancy? So that's, it's a word that doesn't have an exact number because doctors say that it might depend on the health of the mother.

It might depend on the features of the fetus. It might depend on how, if a woman lives in a rural area, how quickly she could get to get medical care. Florida voters would be asked to vote yes or no on the following. No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health as determined by the patient's health care provider. So that word certainly came up a lot in the oral arguments. So what are the rules that this amendment, this language, needs to meet in order to appear on the ballot this fall? The Florida Supreme Court doesn't judge on the merits. Justice has mentioned that that would be decided politically in elections, for instance,

or that there would be they mentioned there is most likely going to be a lot of legal action if this were to be approved by voters. But they need to make sure that an amendment meets the single subject rule so that there aren't more than one topic being addressed. It also needs to be presented to the voters in a way that isn't misleading. It can't violate the U.S. Constitution. And also there needs to be a summary that is accurate that will be available for voters to read before they make their decision. This is not the only question this court has been faced with regarding abortion. Put this ballot language question into the greater context of what has been before this court. Right. So in 2022, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law that

bans abortions after 15 weeks. And last year, he signed a law, a bill into law restricting abortions after six weeks. And so a coalition of abortion rights groups gathered last year under the name Floridians Protecting Freedom to write this amendment so that there would be abortion rights through this viability term enshrined in the Florida Constitution. They have met all the steps, were at the point of the Supreme Court reviewing it because they've met all the steps. For instance, they had to gather just under 900,000 verified signatures from across the state. And this is that final step before it would go on the ballot this November, where the Supreme Court has to approve the wording.

State lawmakers are considering more restrictions on abortion. What can you tell us about those proposals? There is currently a proposal in the Florida legislature, a House Bill 1519, that would ban abortions in Florida, with some exceptions for the health of the mother. And that one actually has been referred to a number of committees, but there's been no movement on it since January 13th. So it looks like that's not going to move at this point much further this session. Also, the Senate president, Kathleen Pasadena, has indicated that Florida isn't prepared to go that far. Another measure called Senate Bill 476. It's called civil liability for the wrongful death of an unborn child.

It's called civil liability for the wrongful death of an unborn child. Critics are saying that it could penalize a doctor for performing or another medical provider for performing an abortion. That one, the last movement was February 6th, and that one has been moving forward. And it will have to see, you know, if lawmakers continue to pass it along. In the meantime, we are still expecting a different type of decision from the Supreme Court regarding abortion, regarding that 15-week ban law. Do we have a timeline for that decision? It was argued in September, and every Thursday at 11 a.m., the Supreme Court typically releases its opinions. I spoke to a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood,

and they've said they're just, all they can do is log on every Thursday and check for any decisions. So there's no sense of how soon. But I will say the other one quickly will be decided by April 1st when it comes to the ballot language issue. Veronica Zaragoza covers health care for our partner station WLRN in Miami. Veronica, thanks for sharing your reporting. My pleasure. Thank you, Tom. A couple of stories about schools now. First, an update on one school district's debate over restricting students from some books. Dozens of students, parents, and teachers spoke out against district-wide book bans at a protest held outside the Brevard County School Board Tuesday night.

It was the first time the board met and voted to ban a book. Danielle Pryor reports now from our partner station, WMFE. Almost 30 books are currently being reviewed after being challenged in the district, including a court of thorns and roses. Outside the meeting, students like Brevard Senior Anjani Sharma voiced concerns over the proposed bans. She says book bans are detrimental to student learning. I know that in books, you know, these authors highlight their own lives, but also lives of others that I would never be able to understand unless I read that.

Eastern Florida State College junior Rosalina Rodriguez says she's upset many of the banned books feature LGBTQ plus characters and themes. I know definitely for me I definitely started off reading some books about those kind of things and that really helped me with who I am. After the hour-long protests the students continued to speak out during public comment but at the end of the meeting the board still decided to remove the book by a vote of four to one. Board member Matt Susan expressed his concerns over some of the sex scenes in the book, along with the community's responses to the book bans. One week, we have a group of people

that come in and yell at us that we didn't ban a book, and then the very next week, we have a bunch of people that come in and say, you banned the book, and it's just this seesaw. However, he says he looks forward to doing the important work of looking at books that have been challenged each meeting. In Orlando, I'm Danielle Pryor. Further south, Broward County is having a different kind of debate, how to respond to declining student enrollment. There are more than 50,000 empty seats in classrooms in Broward County Public Schools, and falling enrollment is expected to continue as families opt for homeschooling, private options, or charter schools. Broward Schools Superintendent Peter Licata says it's time for the district to make some hard decisions, like closing or combining schools. We have to understand that the more money we spend on students that aren't here, the less money we spend on students that are here.

In other words, we've been spending money on empty seats for a long time. So we have to make sure that we're spending wisely. Almost one out of three public schools in Broward County are less than 70% occupied. Fifteen schools have less than half the number of students they can accommodate. Options include closing, combining schools, selling or leasing district properties, and creating more K-8 schools where elementary and middle school grades are combined under one roof. I'm Tom Hudson. You're listening to the Florida Roundup from your Florida Public Radio station. Finally in the Roundup this week,

there's a coming attraction for Netflix subscribers in Florida. Now, it isn't a horror story, but it is kind of a mystery. Let's tell this tax tale this way. In a world where video streaming platforms rule, the tax man cometh. It's been there, lurking for years years unseen by Florida's Netflix subscribers. But now it's time for subscribers to pay. If you subscribe to Netflix using a Florida billing address you have probably seen the notification that beginning February 15th you will be charged an additional state services tax.

Now, the tax is not new, but Netflix passing it on to subscribers is. The tax dates back to 2001 on cell phone service and satellite and cable TV subscriptions. In 2012, the tax was extended to include streaming services. Why do you think we skipped a part? Oh, which part? The part where you tell me what the hell is going on. The mystery is why Netflix has not been passing along this tax to its customers. The company didn't answer

that question in a statement emailed to us. The State Department of Revenue didn't provide any answers either, only saying the taxpayer information is confidential. Chances of success are 20 to 1. Never tell me the odds. So next week,

Florida Netflix subscribers will see an additional 5.07% tacked on to their bill for the state portion of the communication services tax. Oh my god. But that's not the only tax that will show up. Local governments may also charge their own communications tax. And that'll do it for this episode of the Florida Roundup. It's produced by WLRN Public Media in Miami and WUSF Public Media in Tampa. The program is produced by Bridget O'Brien and Grayson Docter. WLRN's Vice President of Radio and the program's Technical Director is Peter Mertz. Engineering help each and every week from Doug Peterson, Charles Michaels, and Jackson Harp.

Richard Ives answers our phones. Our theme music is provided by Miami jazz guitarist Aaron Leibos at aaronleibos.com. If you missed any of today's program, you want to download or listen to past episodes, we got you covered. Go to wlrn.org slash podcasts. Thanks for calling, emailing, listening, and supporting public media in your neighborhood. I'm Tom Hudson. Have a terrific weekend.