The Supreme Court has decided, for now, not to halt the enforcement of a Mississippi law aimed at regulating children’s use of social media. This is a topic that has been garnering increasing national attention due to concerns about the growing influence of social media on young minds.
NetChoice, a tech industry group, challenged laws in Mississippi and other states requiring social media users to verify their ages. They asked for the law to be put on hold while a lawsuit is in progress. The court, however, didn’t heed their appeal.
There were no notable dissents from the brief, unsigned order. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned a note stating that NetChoice might eventually prove the law to be unconstitutional. He nevertheless agreed with the court’s decision, arguing that the tech group had failed to demonstrate that it would suffer legal harm if the law went into effect while the lawsuit was ongoing.
NetChoice contends that the Mississippi law poses a threat to privacy rights and unconstitutionally inhibits the free expression of users of all ages. Yet, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in July that the law could be enforced while the lawsuit proceeds.
The reality is that parents and even some teens are becoming increasingly worried about the impact of social media on young people. Supporters of the new laws argue they are necessary to help curb the skyrocketing use of social media among young people and to combat the associated increase in depression and anxiety, which is just factually accurate.
The data is crystal clear on this. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch made it known that age verification could aid in protecting young people from “sexual abuse, trafficking, physical violence, sextortion, and more,” activities that are not protected by the First Amendment.
Let’s take this to its logical conclusion. If we prioritize the rights of companies over the potential harm to children, are we not failing in our basic duty to protect the most vulnerable among us? The question is not whether companies have the right to free expression, but whether they are using that right responsibly and with due regard for the potential impact on young users. And to that, it seems, the Supreme Court has given a preliminary answer.