Mississippi officials are working on a new law that prevents minors from using social media. The law was created after concerns of the harmful effects of social media on young people, and it will require minors to obtain parental approval to create a social media account. The policy also stipulates that social media companies need to make efforts to verify their users’ ages. Netchoice, a non-profit trade association, notes that “a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may have wrongfully allowed the law despite a judge disapproving of it,” with the judge arguing that it may violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

Significance of the law

If the law passes, it would have a severe effect on Mississippians’ freedom of speech. According to New America, it may infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of all social media users, not just youth. 

Age verification is one of the bill’s biggest hurdles. Facial age estimation, which is a popular method for verifying users’ identities, risks users’ privacy. As it stands, facial age recognition technology is not available in a safe and private manner, and would likely be infeasible to implement on a large-scale social media platform like Instagram, which has two billion monthly users. 

However, supporters of the policy argue that it would reduce the number of children introduced to harmful content online. Because social media and the internet as a whole are so anonymous, minors are at a high risk for manipulation and coercion by other users. The ease of access to almost any sort of content, unrestricted messaging and more, are the prime reasons for why many Mississippi parents and lawmakers are staunch supporters of this law being passed and implemented.

The question of whether social media restrictions violate citizens’ freedom of speech is not unique to Mississippi: Texas and other state courts have blocked similar measures. Rep. Jared Patterson, a Republican in the Texas House of Representatives, stated that “This bill was the best way to protect children in this state,” amidst a rise in phishing, doxxing and cyber-bullying among minors. Instagram and TikTok have been criticized for purposely making their products addictive, perpetuated by their algorithms which determine what content the app feeds its users. 

Despite these efforts, organizations like Center for Democracy and Technology have argued that these limitations to access would undermine freedom of speech. For example, if social media gets banned, two ‘individuals’ rights to freedom of speech and expression are getting limited. 

Take the 2011 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association case, for example. The plaintiffs, a video game and software industry, filed a preenforcement challenge to the California Assembly Bill 1179, which would restrict the selling of violent video games to minors. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Court’s majority opinion, stating that although the government works at the interest of youth, it must not prevent these youth from the free flow of expression and thought. Although a blanket ban may be considered necessary in today’s age, there is no denying that this act of protection may compromise American young people’s constitutionally protected rights.

Despite this revelation, parents and policy-makers alike continue to believe that it’s much safer to disallow them from using social media entirely. Senator Brian Schatz, a United States senator from Hawaii, is a strong supporter of banning social media for children below the age of thirteen. He believes that since companies are not taking action, Congress must. And his claims are not unfounded: Meta recently revealed in a study that 32 percent of teenage girls using Instagram felt dissatisfied with their bodies. However, despite the study’s conclusion, which determined that teenagers blame Instagram for their body image issues, it provides no real solution, only reinforcing the link between mental health issues and social media use that most Americans already understand.

Other supporters of a blanket ban of social media for minors under thirteen  include Senator Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator from Texas, Senator Chris Murphy, the junior U.S. Senator for Connecticut and more. 

Impact of either solution

Both solutions to the social media issue may have extreme impacts. By limiting children’s access to social media, lawmakers may reduce the risks of them doxxed, cyberbullied or otherwise harmed by other users. But this doesn’t mean that minors would not be able to access these social media platforms through secondary means. And if personal documents are required, young people’s privacy and safety may be at risk if their information is not handled properly

Other countries solutions

A harsher approach to social media regulation is not limited to the United States. The Australian government  has implemented a ban on social media for those below sixteen, and is fining companies A$50 million ($32.5 million) if they don’t comply with these new regulations. Amy Friedlander, a civilian mother of three from the “Wait Mate” movement, lobbied in favor of these regulations, noting that it was hard for parents to either see their child being addicted to their devices or feel left out. In response, Meta commented that Australia’s efforts may backfire by pushing children into unregulated corners of the internet.

Can social media ban actually work for teens in the U.S?

Today, social media is ingrained in the social fabric of the United States, especially among young people. Teenagers use social media to communicate, connect and post content. When the recent ban on TikTok was announced, many American teenagers posted videos using VPN. And of the micro trends seen on TikTok and Instagram, many are popularised by the youth in America: Stanley cups, Rhode phone cases and more. It would be a fair assumption to conclude that it would be a risky move as companies would lose a huge market if social media was removed entirely for minors in the U.S.

There is no denying that American youth will be using social media at some point or another. Enabling them to use a moderated and monitored version can instill in them a sense of responsibility as to how to use it safely. But preventing young people from accessing these platforms entirely may be both detrimental to the economy and their social development, and may infringe on people’s freedom of speech–one of the most crucial tenets of the U.S. Constitution.