Statement on HB 2661: “Relating to Personal Electronic Devices”

Statement from:
Steven Greenhut, Western Region Director, R Street Institute

Statement on HB 2661: “Relating to Personal Electronic Devices”

January 31, 2024

Arizona House Judiciary Committee

Chairman Nguyen and members of the committee,

My name is Steven Greenhut. I am Western region director for the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank that works on a variety of issues including tech-related ones. I am here to oppose Arizona House Bill 2661.

One of the basic tenets of conservatism is that individuals – not government regulators – are best-suited to manage their own lives and raise their families. HB 2661 and similar bills in other states are well-intentioned, but they suppose that lawmakers and government officials know what’s best when it comes to managing how people use smart phones and tablets.

It is basically the dictionary definition of a Nanny State bill. It treats all adults as if they are children.

Even as it is currently drafted, the measure seems likely to get tied up in the courts on constitutional grounds. The same basic issue was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

One of the unanimous court’s finding was that the law’s “burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the act’s legitimate purposes.” Yet this bill burdens all adults by providing device filters on all cellphones and tablets and forcing buyers to verify their age. It imposes a burden on all adults to have uncensored internet access on their own devices.

The bill will end up limiting access to legitimate sites. These filters aren’t particularly precise. I think of my daughter, who as a teen, was involved in agriculture and animal breeding. Each child is different and, again, parents are best able to determine what they access.

The bill also creates a slippery slope. I can only imagine what lawmakers in, say, my home state of California might propose if the courts uphold it – perhaps filters to block climate-change denialism or whatever they deem “hate speech.”

Here are some other problems with the legislation:

First, the bill has easy workarounds, as teens can access anything on laptops or other platforms.

Second, it will provide parents with a false sense of security. There’s no substitute for parental supervision and involvement. Not technology can automatically do that for them.

Third, it imposes large burdens on businesses while effectively giving the real bad actors – actual pornographers – a pass.

Fourth, it’s easy for kids to lie on age-verification questions. The alternative would be having tech companies gather enormous amounts of personal information – that’s burdensome for them and creepy for the rest of us.

Fifth, it would reduce market innovation. We know that competition yields the best result rather than a one-size-fits-all regulatory edict. I think of those federal Do Not Call lists that haven’t worked to stop spam calls, while cellphone company spam blockers have helped thanks to market responses.

A colleague sent me an extensive list of readily available tools that parents can use to manage their kids’ devices. Encouraging them to use them is the right, less-burdensome approach rather than making government the nanny.

Thank you for your time.

Steven Greenhut
Western Region Director
R Street Institute
(909) 260-9836
[email protected]
Arizona Lobbyist number: 3612711