Not A Good Week To Be Social

This week saw a bunch of legal attacks against various social media sites.

As usual, all under the supposed context of protecting children.

In the US

First, Attorney Generals from 42 U.S. states and territories (California, Colorado, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Wisconsin and Wyoming, to name just a few) have approached Congress with a joint letter asking for measures to be implemented where warning labels will be affixed to social media platforms.

In part they state, "We, the attorneys general of the 42 undersigned states, write in support of the United States Surgeon General’s recent call for Congress to require a surgeon general’s warning on social media platforms."

The AGs are endorsing U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy's recent call for a Surgeon General's warning on social media platforms. Vivek’s contention is that social media overuse is potentially addictive and contributes to a mental health crisis for young people. The AG’s go on to state cases where certain social media platforms are actually accused of breaking the law. But up until now, and as we have noted, First Amendment legal victories have often prevailed in cases that deal with the civil liberties concerns levied by appropriate age design codes, age verification requirements, and other regulatory concepts.

In an essay Surgeon General Murthy wrote in the New York Times opinion section he likened what he sees as a needed warning on social media to the public health safety measures implemented over vaping or tobacco products.

As he stated:

"A surgeon general’s warning label, which requires congressional action, would regularly remind parents and adolescents that social media has not been proven safe. Legislation from Congress should shield young people from online harassment, abuse, and exploitation and from exposure to extreme violence and sexual content that too often appears in algorithm-driven feeds."

In Australia

As they have been fighting to for quite a while under Prime Minister Albanese, Australia is ready to enforce minimum age requirement laws over social media and other digital platforms their citizen can access.

“A Commonwealth-led approach to this important social issue will ensure Australian children are better protected from online harms and parents and carers are supported,” the Prime Minister said in a public statement. “A Commonwealth-led approach to this important social issue will ensure Australian children are better protected from online harms and parents and carers are supported.”

The Australians seem to be taking from a French report titled the “Report of the Independent Legal Examination into Banning Children’s Access to Social Media,” which addresses the country's free speech and age protections. Unlike the U.S., as a Commonwealth country, Australia has no blanket U.S.-style First Amendment protections.

The above report pairs pornography and violent content, calling both “unwanted inappropriate content” for teenagers, as well as loosely defining the sexualization of minors as “the imposition of adult models of sexual behavior and sexuality."

A slight reversal?

Back to the U.S with this bit of news…

This week, while all the above was going on, a federal judge in Utah blocked his state’s “Minor Protection in Social Media Act.” Set to go into effect Oct. 1, this law is part of a bunch of measures passed by the Utah state legislator for, and as we have heard all too often, the supposed protection of minors from adult content.

Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby seems to have bristled by what many are calling sweeping censorship by granting a preliminary injunction request made by tech industry trade group NetChoice, Netchoice has been involved in plenty of instances to make the “Internet safe for free enterprise and free expression.”

Utah has been a leader in the fight to implement anti-porn legislation, supposedly because of the strong influence of the Mormon church in that state. Their attempt to implement “porn filters” has been reported plenty as they attempt to bring measures as much to their state as across the U.S.

It should be noted that the new “Minor Protection in Social Media Act” law has come under criticism, (and it seems Judge Shelby’s detailed eye) for what have been called its overreach and allowing the state to become corporate censors.

We all want to protect children, of course, but stay on, tune in, log out, at your peril.