Monica Church — Asked why the amendment needs to discuss a hypothetical transfer of U.S. land to the state.
Monica Church — Her name was invoked in a joking reference to a possible 'Church Wilderness Act.'
Monica Church — Her name was again referenced in the same joking proposal about a 'Church Wilderness Act.'
Monica Church — Referenced in the joking proposal for a 'Church Wilderness Act.'
Monica Church — She questioned who would make decisions about fire-charred recreational land.
Monica Church — Addressed directly by the speaker in response to her question.
Monica Church — Not mentioned in this section; no direct mention.
Monica Church — No direct mention; omitted from final cleanup.
Monica Church — Referenced as having raised concerns about wilderness land being scorched and valuation.
Monica Church — Representative Church followed up on litigation concerns by clarifying that his question was specifically about the private cause of action for parents under the proposed law. He asked whether the organization had considered the cost of defending such parent-initiated lawsuits and the broader expense to the state if those cases move forward.
Monica Church — Representative Church said she generally agreed with the direction of the discussion but cautioned that upholding the law could be costly and likely to trigger litigation. She added that parents may sue, companies are unlikely to simply comply, and Idaho could end up drawn into expensive Supreme Court litigation.
Brent Crane — Brent Crane is mentioned in a lighthearted joke about creating a 'Crane Wilderness Act,' with the same quip repeated across overlapping transcript segments.
Brent Crane — Chairman Brent Crane is addressed during the introduction of testimony, then asks Chelsea to spell her last name for the record to ensure accuracy. A few minutes later, he is again addressed as Mr. Chair as the committee moves into the question period.
Brent Crane — Representative/Chairman Crane is referenced throughout a continuous discussion about the bill he brought in and the committee’s review of its language. The speaker notes that the review is being done on behalf of Representative Crane, thanks Chairman Crane, and then expands the discussion by suggesting the body could ask Congress through a resolution to take a broader approach to Section 230 and the immunity provided to internet providers and social media platforms.
Brent Crane — The chair invited Representative Brent Crane to close on the bill before committee action. Crane then closed by arguing that the bill protects children, gives parents more control, and should be sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation, emphasizing that the committee should side with kids over big tech companies.
Brent Crane — Representative Crane was thanked for bringing forward the legislation.
Jim Guthrie — Jim Guthrie is repeatedly addressed during a continuous committee exchange, including several instances of being called 'Mr. Chair' or 'Mr. Chairman.' The surrounding remarks show an ongoing back-and-forth in which he is engaged in the discussion, including a request to ask a clarifying follow-up question and brief acknowledgments of other members, all within the same conversational moment.
Jim Guthrie — The chairman opens by referencing the film The Insider and tobacco litigation, then asks whether social media companies that are known to cause anxiety, stress, and suicide could face similar lawsuits from state attorneys general. The exchange then transitions into closing testimony, with the chairman briefly recognizing a member to ask a question.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Addressed by name in the discussion of land ownership and management.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Stephanie Mickelsen made a brief set of remarks supporting the bill. She compared the issue to tobacco regulation, argued that lawmakers have a responsibility to act despite pressure from big tech companies, and concluded by saying she is in favor of the bill as a step toward a safer mental-health future for children.
Kelly Anthon — Kelly Anthon is mentioned repeatedly in a short, continuous segment of the meeting, with no distinct topic change or separate discussion evident across the mentions.
Kelly Anthon — The transcript appears to say 'Representative Haas,' but context suggests a member is about to speak; the name is uncertain and not corrected beyond the spoken text.
Mark Harris — No direct mention; omitted from final cleanup.
Mark Harris — Possibly referenced as 'Representative Hawks' in a transcription error; context suggests another member was cited alongside Representative Church.
Mark Harris — Representative Scott argued that the current technology situation is analogous to the Industrial Revolution, when children were sent to factories for long hours to their detriment. He said the new technology era presents a similar challenge and that the bill is a good start toward addressing it.
James Holtzclaw — He said he is nervous about changing the Constitution and questioned the appraised value of burned wilderness land.
Jaron Crane — Representative Jaron Crane of District 12, Nampa, identified himself for the record, then introduced House Bill 542 and asked to yield part of his time to Chelsea.
Jaron Crane — Praised for laying out the harms from addictive social media.
Chelsea — Crane yielded part of his time to Chelsea, who would continue the presentation.
Chelsea — Explained that addictive features include infinite scrolling and autoplay videos.
Chelsea — Explained that the bill's list is inclusive, not exclusive, and should cover future interface features.
Chelsea — Explained that the bill targets social media interface features and allows parental time limits after verified consent.
Chelsea — Explained that the bill was reviewed in light of Section 230 and, in their view, would not be preempted because it sets a floor, not a ceiling.
Chelsea — Identified the relevant provision as page two, section E, lines four through seven, and cited NetChoice v. Bonta.
Chelsea — Continued explaining that display of personal metrics is content-based speech and that strict scrutiny applies.
Chelsea — Said no cost analysis had been done and emphasized the goal of making the bill constitutionally sound.
Chelsea — Said no state cost analysis had been done and explained the private cause of action includes $10,000 statutory damages plus actual damages and relief.
Chelsea — Argued that compliance with the bill would require design and interface changes and could prevent a windfall.
brother-in-law / youth pastor — The sponsor described his brother-in-law, a youth pastor and now associate pastor at a church in Nampa, as the person who called him about the issue.
brother-in-law / associate pastor — Described as attending a meeting with community leaders to address youth mental health and suicide concerns in the Treasure Valley.
Chelsea Yeoman — Identified herself as Senior Counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom and began testimony after being yielded time.
Chelsea Yoman — Introduced herself as Senior Counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom and said she was honored to serve as a legal resource on the bill.
Chelsea Yoman — Continued testimony, praising Representative Crane's explanation and arguing that children should not be treated as experiments or profited from.
Chelsea Yoman — Discussed vulnerable youth, including neurodivergent youth and those with less impulse control, as especially susceptible to social media use as emotional regulation.
Chelsea Yoman — Listed stressors from social media use and described resulting harms such as body image dissatisfaction, self-harm, sleep disruption, depression, and anxiety.
Chelsea Yoman — Argued that social media platforms profit from addicted users.
Chelsea Yoman — Responded that several bills across the U.S. have been passed and are distinguishable from HB 542.
Chelsea Yoman — Began answering Representative Bingham's question about AI technology and age estimation.
Shawn Dygert — Shawn Dygert was called on for questions and then asked whether any lawsuits or cases involving social media platforms had been reconciled or decided yet.
Shawn Dygert — Representative Dygert said he would support the motion to move the bill to the floor, expressing approval of advancing it and criticizing the companies' actions toward children.