Across the globe, countries are taking steps to protect kids and teens when they’re online. Britain is considering joining the ranks of Australia and France, which have bans on social media use by kids under 16 and 15, respectively.
Bans in Australia and France took effect within the past year, and more may follow. In Britain, Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his government are looking into social media bans for those under 16.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
It all stems from growing concerns over teens’ mental health and the impact social media has.
It’s a concern that spreads across the globe. But one country that could have difficulties instituting a ban is the U.S, and the reason is simple: the First Amendment.
Social media and the First Amendment
A Harvard Law Review article examined content neutrality for children — government restrictions on speech that apply regardless of the message — and social media age-verification laws. It found that these bans tread on the line of First Amendment infringement.
“Social media age-verification laws raise immense First Amendment concerns,” the review article notes. “From data privacy issues, to chilling effects on social media posts, to potentially high costs for compliance, these laws ‘threaten to torch a large segment of the Internet community.’”
While no U.S. states have tried a full social media ban for minors, many have sought to implement regulations and age-verification policies. However, as the Harvard Law Review found, companies have successfully overturned some of those policies in lower courts.
“So far, states have been mostly unsuccessful in defending their laws: All but one district court addressing the issue has held that these laws likely violate the First Amendment,” Harvard Law found.
Harvard found that First Amendment concerns are rooted in one idea: that consumers, rather than the government, “should decide which ideas are worth engaging with.”
Past court cases across the country have reiterated this, specifically regarding social media, finding that individuals have a right to access social media platforms. Courts have also found that companies have rights to curate content as they choose.
The solution
However, Harvard found that, despite the hurdles, there’s still a path forward for protecting children online. The review found that legislators need to target content less and focus more on specific site features.
It found that “regulating specific harmful features without reference to content” is one of the likely paths forward, as well as naming platforms directly rather than using the general term “social media.”
“The First Amendment imposes a high, but not insurmountable, hurdle for states to overcome in regulating minors’ social media use,” Harvard Law wrote. “By focusing on specific features that lead to harmful effects on minors, states can craft content-neutral laws that will merit only intermediate scrutiny.”
Harvard Law said the issue is navigating “rapidly developing legal doctrine” and that states need to be flexible and creative when drafting policy.
Other efforts
Legislators aren’t the only ones seeking solutions, either. Earlier this month, three social media companies agreed to be tested for how well they protect the mental health of teenage users after public pressure. TikTok, Snap and Meta all agreed to participate in new testing with the Mental Health Coalition.
The testing, part of a new Safe Online Standards initiative, will grade social media platforms on whether they mandate breaks, offer options to disable endless scrolling and other criteria.
