Comment on Moral Panic Beats First Amendment In Sixth Circuit’s Ohio Social Media Ruling by Arianity

cherry-picked, out-of-context horror stories about what social media does to kids — with no mention of the substantial corresponding evidence that the picture is far more complicated than that.

Yeah, it really sucks when people cherry-pick stories, with no mention of substantial corresponding evidence that paints a more complicated picture. It must really suck when someone does that.

nd the Sixth Circuit says social media is different… pointing to the Surgeon General’s report…

There were a few other things they cited as well, might be worth mentioning. Like, I dunno, maybe Research shows that a significant number of minors using social media interact with adult strangers and experience sexual solicitation from, grooming by, and confidential relationships with those strangers.

The Surgeon General is more complicated.. on the one hand, it's not supported, but on the other, I don't know if you can blame the court? That's more on the Surgeon General for screwing up. The point of experts is that the court is supposed to be able to rely on them, it's not really equipped to second guess them. (It's also worth noting, the dissenting judge does not do so because of the scientific evidence (or lack thereof). It's solely legal arguments of e.g. under/over inclusiveness.)

It’s difficult to see how the Sixth Circuit’s majority ruling here makes any sense, unless the majority simply thinks it’s okay for LGBTQ+ and other marginalized kids to suffer.

Or they think it's up to the legislature, when it comes to a compelling government interest. Balancing the harm to marginalized kids with other types of harm is exactly that sort of interest. Requiring a compelling interest does not mean there will be no trade offs in policy.

Some amount of balancing is unavoidable, but the point of strict scrutiny is not for courts to be making policy decisions on whether one priority outweighs another.

Since the entire point of the law is a one-time consent, Judge Ritz notes that, if we assume that there is real harm from social media to kids, then the second a parent gives consent, that harm is still likely to occur.

I mean, that's part of how parenting works, yes. As a part of it, we allow parents to opt their kids into things that can hurt their kids. This isn't new. It is also e.g. the exact same logic that we already allow a parent to forbid their child from using any social media (or basically any media at all), even though that harms the child.

And one-time parental consent — which requires no ongoing supervision, verifies nothing meaningful, and defaults to “apparently the caller’s say-so is sufficient” — cannot survive strict scrutiny.

One-time parental consent seems fine (assuming it's verified etc- that part is genuinely problematic and should be deficient). If anything, it should be more likely to survive 'least restrictive means'. Repeated interventions make the burden worse and content harder to access.