Testimony In OPPOSITION to Senate Bill 351: “Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act of 2024”
Testimony from:
Marc Hyden, Director, State Government Affairs, R Street Institute
In OPPOSITION to Senate Bill 351: “Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act of 2024”
March 7, 2024
House Education Policy Subcommittee
Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
My name is Marc Hyden. I am a Georgia resident and the director of state government affairs for the R Street Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public-policy research organization. Our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government in many areas, including the technology and innovation sector. This is why Senate Bill 351 is of special interest to us.
To begin with, I want to applaud Sen. Jason Anavitarte for his concerns over the impact of social media on youths and for taking action. While there are a host of benefits to social media, the science has shown that impressionable juveniles can face detrimental effects from the use of online platforms. These include exposure to inappropriate content, cyber-bullying, anxiety and even depression.
Requiring schools to guard against cyber-bullying and restricting access to social media on school devices, property and networks—as this bill does—is well within the government’s role. In fact, given that students attend school to learn and not play on social media, it is a completely reasonable response. Sen. Anavitarte obviously also understands that children may continue to use social media outside of school hours, and this bill would require that schools adopt curriculum to help them navigate the challenges of and cope with social media. I appreciate that.
Unfortunately, other portions of the bill raise serious concerns. According to the bill language, “No provider of a social media platform shall permit a minor to be an account holder unless such provider obtains the express consent of such minor’s parent or guardian.” In order to enforce this, social media platforms would have to verify the identity and age of every single prospective user in order to use the platforms.
This seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster. As my colleague, Josh Withrow, previously wrote about a similar measure, “The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the majority of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, on similar grounds as would likely be the case for [this bill]. In that case, the majority held that making websites liable for verifying the age of all its users would place ‘an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech.’” This is especially true given that optional content-filtering software already exists that parents can install on their children’s devices if they so wish.
“Moreover,” Withrow remarked, “the ability of minors to access non-obscene content without parental consent has been upheld as a First Amendment right in itself, and that right carries through to internet services. Justice Antonin Scalia, in striking down a California law that required parental permission for minors to buy violent video games, noted that ‘whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’s command, do not vary when a new and different medium for communication appears.’ Scalia continued: ‘[i]t does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent…’”
In addition to the constitutional questions, there are serious cyber-security concerns. If passed, social media giants would have to collect individuals’ personal information and proof of identification. This might prove too tempting a target for hackers, and while this measure would require that online platforms delete such data, I would wager that hackers could find a way to exploit it. Moreover, social media giants would need to verify the guardians of youths wishing to use social media—meaning they would be involved in very personal issues, like foster care, adoptions, divorces, etc.
In the end, Americans are incredibly uncomfortable with these measures. “In a recent poll, the CGO asked Americans if they are ‘comfortable sharing a government identification document like a driver’s license with social media companies in order to verify age.’ The survey found that 2 out of 3 of Americans are not comfortable sharing their identification document with social media companies. 1 in 10 Americans were unsure.”
While I appreciate Sen. Anavitarte’s sincere concerns and efforts to help youths, the latter part of this bill presents some serious problems, which merit a deeper, more thorough debate.
Thank you,
Marc Hyden
Director, State Government Affairs
R Street Institute
(404) 918-2731
[email protected]