Prior to my retirement, I was Staff Director of a major subcommittee of the US House of Representatives, and my immediate boss was Congressman Jon Porter, who represented: LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. And Jon used to tell me, "Ron, I never go into those places because I figured out a long time ago how they pay for them." And, of course he was saying casinos are NOT money losers for the house. Every time lawmakers seem to want new laws that govern behavior they send us deeper into the swamp of moral rot and decay, not to mention teaching our children to use drugs and engage in promiscuous behavior, all of which are destructive to our neighborhoods, cities, states, and most important, our Nation. Encouraging "striking it rich" and "I'll beat the odds" activity causes individuals and families to sacrifice limited incomes on the pipe dream that they will be "more lucky, next time." Do NOT impose this new scourge on us--NO CASINO in Fairfax County. Ron Martinson 703 354-3997

Prior to my retirement, I was Staff Director of a major subcommittee of the US House of Representatives, and my immediate boss was Congressman Jon Porter, who represented: LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. And Jon used to tell me, "Ron, I never go into those places because I figured out a long time ago how they pay for them." And, of course he was saying casinos are NOT money losers for the house. Every time lawmakers seem to want new laws that govern behavior they send us deeper into the swamp of moral rot and decay, not to mention teaching our children to use drugs and engage in promiscuous behavior, all of which are destructive to our neighborhoods, cities, states, and most important, our Nation. Encouraging "striking it rich" and "I'll beat the odds" activity causes individuals and families to sacrifice limited incomes on the pipe dream that they will be "more lucky, next time." Do NOT impose this new scourge on us--NO CASINO in Fairfax County. Ron Martinson 703 354-3997

Comments Document

The Consumer Choice Center expresses concern with VA HB1624 which requires that social media networks identify their users to classify those under 18 years of age and require parental consent if said platforms provide what the legislation broadly declares are “addictive feeds”. The bill also restricts social media firms from offering alternative products to minors. The goal of protecting children online and steering them toward healthy uses of technology and social media is an important and noble goal that we also champion. However, due to the language in this bill and the effects it would have on practically all users of social media, the measure would cause more harm than good. HB1624 would have a worrying impact on the ability of anyone – minor or adult – to freely use certain social platforms and participate online. Please see the attached letter for more information on our policy concerns with the proposed legislation. Stephen Kent Manassas, VA Consumer Choice Center

Comments Document

Contains our feedback on the proposed legislation based on our expertise with this issue from around dealing with this issue in other states.

Comments Document

Dear Chair Hayes, Delegate Thomas, and Members of the Committee, We at Stop Child Predators write to you today to express our opposition to House Bill 1624, which would fail to protect children in Virginia, infringe on Virginians’ freedom of speech, and disenfranchise parents from their right to make decisions on matters regarding their own children. Social media can be beneficial for teenagers when it comes to age-appropriate friendships and exploring their hobbies and interests. Parental involvement and monitoring is critical to ensuring teenagers remain safe online and learn healthy online habits before they become adults. It should be parents who decide what tools and resources are appropriate for their children. House Bill 1624’s definition of what is “addictive” is incredibly vague and the legislation fails to offer resources to encourage parents or teenagers to implement time limits or screen time online. In fact, the algorithms House Bill 1624 would prohibit keep our children safer by filtering unwanted content for children – providing parents another resource to better protect their children. Governor Youngkin was absolutely right to issue an executive order to protect kids online because something must be done. He is showing strong leadership for Virginia in this area, but legislators should empower parents as they take his direction. Additionally, this bill is destined to be held up in court on constitutional questions related to free speech, where similar bills in California in New York have faced temporary injunctions as the courts make a final ruling on the bill’s constitutionality. Virginia should not follow California and New York’s lead by passing House Bill 1624 before the California courts issue their final ruling regarding the constitutionality of this legislation. If House Bill 1624 is passed, it will likely waste taxpayer dollars defending an unconstitutional bill that will do nothing to stop child predators or protect children online in the meantime. This is a far cry from what Virginia parents need. As an advocacy group that has focused on stopping child predators for nearly 20 years, we encourage the Virginia legislature to consider legislation that puts parents in the driver’s seat and makes real headway against predators by providing for municipal, state, and federal law enforcement, more prosecutors, more judges, and more support for victims. There are many helpful solutions that would keep kids safe online without violating free speech. House Bill 1624 will only waste time and money while our teenagers are in desperate need of real solutions. Respectfully, Stop Child Predators

Comments Document

Chairman Hayes and members of the committee: My name is Max Gulker, and I am a senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation. Thank you for the opportunity to offer our analysis of House Bill 1624 (HB 1624). Along with the many heavily debated pros and cons of online age restrictions and parental consent in general, HB 1624 opens the door to negative unintended consequences due to the way that it is written. HB 1624 attempts to define which features and services offered by social media platforms are potentially risky for minors. Concerns over the personalized algorithms social media uses to recommend content (“addictive feeds”) stem from some highly publicized recent studies about kids and screen time, as well as features of algorithms some worry have addictive properties. Using this definition, HB 1624 breaks down the activities performed by social media algorithms and provides a list of features for which minors must have verifiable parental consent. Algorithms recommending, displaying, and moderating content provided by others based on information obtained from the user would require minors to have parental consent, though the bill sets forth several exemptions. The framework defining “addictive feeds” in HB 1624–with dozens of terms defined and several exemptions set forth–may do a good job of describing the ways we use social media algorithms today. But a similar effort five or ten years ago would likely have looked very different, and the framework of HB 1624 will likely be obsolete in ways we can’t predict five or ten years from now. This will reduce the effectiveness of HB 1624. Enforcement will grow more complicated, and new features and activities provided by social media will lead to new arguments about what is and isn’t covered in the bill. As compliance and enforcement grow more complicated, the playing field will tilt toward larger and more experienced firms and away from small firms and new entrants. The “addictive feeds” framework, particularly if adopted by more states, could ultimately distort future innovation, once again in unintended and undesirable ways. By concerning itself with the specific nuts and bolts of how social media operates in 2025, innovative platforms may stick to old processes because they make compliance easier, even when new processes or features could be of greater value or even safer for users. Finally, the same factors that make the “addictive feeds” framework problematic–high-profile and rapidly changing technology–raise questions about whether the research on potential harms will stand the test of time. The studies noted above are both recent and controversial. Our understanding of yesterday’s media revolutions (recorded music, television, to name just two) and their possible harms have changed with time. Our understanding of any harms from social media, and the sources of those harms, will no doubt change as well. These potential consequences of adopting the “addictive feeds” framework are but one small part of the complicated set of debates over kids and social media. But they suggest that the “addictive feeds” framework is the wrong approach for an industry defined by rapid and unpredictable technological change. The potential unintended consequences from this method of requiring parental consent, in our view, outweigh the potential benefits.

Comments Document

Please see attached.

Oppose this bill because it is DEI and similar divisive legislation that lowers standards and expectations, and creates separation.

Comments Document

TechNet HB 1624 remarks

Comments Document

Writing in regard to Virginia House Bill 1624.

Comments Document

See attached file.

Comments Document

See attached file.

Comments Document

The Virginia legislature should learn from California's recent mistake of passing an unconstitutional law restricting online speech and avoid repeating it with HB 1624. Instead of wasting taxpayer money on likely unconstitutional legislation, Virginia lawmakers should focus on legal and effective solutions to promote online safety for children, such as educational initiatives that empower parents. These efforts would better serve Virginians and respect their free speech rights.

Comments Document

The Virginia legislature should learn from California's recent mistake of passing an unconstitutional law restricting online speech and avoid repeating it with HB 1624. Instead of wasting taxpayer money on likely unconstitutional legislation, Virginia lawmakers should focus on legal and effective solutions to promote online safety for children, such as educational initiatives that empower parents. These efforts would better serve Virginians and respect their free speech rights.

Comments Document

We have serious constitutional concerns about this bill's restrictions on personalized content for minors on social media platforms. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld strong First Amendment protections for both sharing and receiving online content, most recently in Moody v. NetChoice in 2024, where the Court explicitly recognized that social media feeds are protected expression. Additionally, just last year, California enacted a law similar to HB 1624. But California is currently prohibited from enforcing it. The case challenging California’s law will soon be heard by the Ninth Circuit. At the very least, if the Committee is not convinced of HB 1624’s unconstitutionality, it should wait until the California litigation is resolved before enacting HB 1624.

I hope I understand this bill correctly. I believe it is protecting our kids from being exposed to inappropriate content such as weed, cigarettes, and sexual material? If that’s the case, then why are Democrats legalizing cannabis? Why lower expectations and standards in schools because that is what keeps happening from the far-left Democrat Party. I don’t want to see these inappropriate things myself. Nothing is safe for our children and young adults. I am This begins with the family and following the Rule of Law.

Comments Document

TechNet's written remarks on HB 1624 - addictive feeds - are attached.

I strongly oppose SB982 which would make it possible to have a casino in Tyson's Corner. Northern Virginia does not have the infrastructure to support this. In addition, it will bring crime and a risk to national security. It's a slippery slope -- local buy-in is essential because the region will suffer the consequences of this addition to our community. It is a dangerous precedent for the General Assembly to circumvent local buy-in. I support HB1681 as it is critical to support non-binary people in our community to have self-expression in all formats, including government documentation.

Welcome to the 21st century. Nonbinaries do indeed exist. It’s time society embraces that.

The City of Newport News supports this bill.

ForKids Supports this bill. I'm writing to express ForKids' strong support for [HB1719/SB812], legislation to extend the pay-or-quit notice period from five to fourteen days. Virginia has one of the highest eviction rates in the nation and the problem is especially severe in the Hampton Roads community ForKids serves. When landlords file suit, tenants face mounting costs, including court fees and attorney’s fees that inflate a typically small amount of unpaid rent into an insurmountable burden. The process also imposes costs on landlords, who often cannot recoup any money at all in eviction cases. As the provider of the Hampton Roads Housing Crisis Line and a local leader in the Virginia Eviction Reduction Pilot, our organization knows that a longer pay-or-quit period will allow us to more effectively prevent homelessness for children and families. We should use every available tool to keep people safely and securely housed.

I support these bills to make our community safer

Please pass these comments sense safety laws. The county desperately needs them.

VSC NAACP supports HB 1759.

We strongly support HB1759, which addresses one of the most significant challenges faced by those reentering society after incarceration: the lack of support for a successful transition. This bill ensures that critical educational, vocational, counseling, substance abuse, and reentry services are made available at probation and parole offices statewide. Through our advocacy, we hear stories of individuals desperate to break free from cycles of recidivism but unable to access the tools and guidance they need to succeed. This bill goes further by requiring collaboration with the Department of Workforce Development and Advancement to provide post-release job search assistance. Employment is a cornerstone of stability, and the services outlined in this bill can mean the difference between a fresh start and a return to prison. HB1759 is a step toward accountability, dignity, and real rehabilitation. It not only supports returning citizens but also benefits families, communities, and the Commonwealth as a whole. I urge you to vote in favor of this bill. _________________________________________________________________________________ We strongly support HB1589. This bill takes critical steps toward improving the structure and functioning of the Virginia Parole Board. Increasing the Board’s membership to 10 members not only allows for greater diversity of thought and experience but ensures that each case is given the time and attention it deserves. We’ve heard directly from incarcerated individuals who often feel that their futures hinge on rushed decisions by an overburdened system. By expanding the Board and requiring panels of three to four members for deliberation and voting, this bill introduces a more thorough and thoughtful process, particularly for those serving life sentences. This bill also includes vital provisions for transparency and fairness, ensuring that victims’ voices are heard and that those eligible for parole receive a meaningful review. Parole isn’t just a bureaucratic process; it’s about second chances, accountability, and hope. HB1589 strengthens the system for everyone involved, and we urge you to support it. ________________________________________________________________________________ We regularly hear from incarcerated individuals trapped in solitary confinement—many for months or even years. They share stories of overwhelming despair, debilitating anxiety, and the feeling of losing their very sense of humanity. One man described forgetting how to hold a conversation. Another said he hadn’t felt the sun on his skin in years. These are not isolated accounts—this is the daily reality of restorative housing as used by VADOC. Solitary confinement strips people of basic social skills, fractures their mental health, and leaves them traumatized. How can we expect rehabilitation when we take away their ability to function in the world? Instead of restoring lives, this practice destroys them. HB2647 is a critical step toward replacing cruelty with dignity. It’s time we move toward humane, effective solutions that truly restore lives and strengthen public safety. Please support this bill.

Ladies and Gentlemen I thank you for the opportunity to share my experience with Virginia’s DOC and consequences of confinement. Our prisons are so short staffed that keeping inmates locked down is a normal practice. I have witnessed my happy go lucky loved one change in front of my face. He gets emotional easily, lost lots of weight, talks with a sadness in his voice, and his mental sharpness is deteriorating quickly. Sacrificing a human’s basic ability to be involved with others is immoral and inhumane. We as a society have labeled incarcerated individuals as worthless pieces of garbage that doesn’t even deserve a nutritional meal let alone any kind of normal life. When I say “normal life” I’m referring to a hot/warm shower, clean clothes without stains or tears, food that is fit to eat, natural sunlight, and temperature controlled environment. We have learned that going without natural light can cause serious depression and lead to other health issues. Imagine being locked down for days at a time where the only face you see is the one looking back at you through a flimsy plastic mirror. Close your eyes for a moment I want each of you to feel the darkness, loneliness, and suffering that solitary confinement creates. Now picture what it must feel like when it’s days, weeks, and months before you can feel human again. Ask yourself how would your loved ones feel if they didn’t hear your voice, get mail, or visits from you for an extended period of time. Better yet how would you feel if you weren’t able to communicate with them for long periods of time? Maybe some of you would like a little mini break from all the noise, but when that break doesn’t end and you’re left alone everything inside of you starts changing. Our society treats animals 100% better than incarcerated people. If a person is found guilty of animal cruelty or abuse they’re punished as well as they should be punished. Yet our prisons and society thinks it’s okay to treat human beings like garbage. See when we bag up our garbage we throw it out and never give it a second thought. This is exactly what we’re doing when we allow people to be confined and it needs to stop. Every life matters- especially those with emotional and mental health needs. Locking down people is creating more harm than good. This practice of punishment should be abolished and deemed a crime against humanity.

I support these bills to make our community safer

Please pass these comments sense safety laws. The county desperately needs them.

I disagree with this bill which aims to restrict minors' access to social media accounts between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. without parental permission for several reasons: Lack of Specific Parental Control Options: One major flaw in this legislation is the absence of specific parental control options for setting personalized time restrictions on online platforms. Parents might need different time frames based on their child's schedule, school nights vs. weekends, or special circumstances like time zone differences for families with international connections. The bill's one-size-fits-all approach from 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. does not accommodate these nuances, limiting parents' ability to tailor restrictions to fit their family's unique needs. Overly Broad and Inflexible: The fixed time restriction might not suit all families or situations, making the law overly broad and inflexible. For instance, some minors might have legitimate reasons to be online during these hours, like participating in global educational projects or connecting with family abroad. Enforcement Challenges: Ensuring compliance with this law would be challenging for commercial entities. Determining the age of users and managing permissions from parents across different time zones or varying legal guardianship situations adds complexity, potentially leading to errors or oversights. Potential for Circumvention: Minors could find ways around these restrictions, such as using VPNs or accessing social media through different devices or accounts not linked to their primary profiles, thus rendering the law less effective. Civil Liability Concerns: The introduction of civil liability for damages related to sleep cycle or mental health could lead to a flood of lawsuits, many of which might be difficult to prove causation, creating a legal and financial burden on social media companies, which might not directly correlate with the intended protection of minors. Privacy Issues: To enforce such a law, social media platforms might need to collect and store more personal information about users' ages and parental consents, raising privacy concerns, especially for minors. Impact on Parental Responsibility: This bill might inadvertently reduce the perceived responsibility of parents in managing their children's online activities, suggesting that regulation can replace parental oversight, which is not always the case. Missed Opportunity for Education: Instead of restrictive measures, the legislation misses an opportunity to promote digital literacy and responsible online behavior through education, which could be more beneficial in the long term for both minors and their mental health. I oppose this legislation due to its lack of flexibility in parental control options, broad and inflexible time restrictions, enforcement difficulties, potential circumvention, civil liability issues, privacy concerns, the impact on parental responsibility, and the missed opportunity for educational approaches to online safety. A more nuanced strategy that includes customizable parental controls and education would better serve the goal of protecting minors' well-being.

Comments Document

TechNet HB 1816 remarks are attached.

I hope I understand this bill correctly. I believe it is protecting our kids from being exposed to inappropriate content such as weed, cigarettes, and sexual material? If that’s the case, then why are Democrats legalizing cannabis? Why lower expectations and standards in schools because that is what keeps happening from the far-left Democrat Party. I don’t want to see these inappropriate things myself. Nothing is safe for our children and young adults. I am This begins with the family and following the Rule of Law.

Comments Document

TechNet's written remarks on HB 1816 - restricted hours for minors - are attached.