Excellent post that really outlines the potential harms of this legislation. Thank you for writing this. Though I understand your criticism of phones in schools, I think we should empower teachers to make those decisions in their classrooms and be careful not make government mandates about cell phones in schools or pass laws making them illegal to carry on campuses (see: the many teenagers arrested for carrying beepers in the 90s). For many kids, cell phones aid in their learning by functioning as calculators, word processors, and allow for easy documentation of lesson materials like slides. Some restrictions are reasonable imo, but let’s not let the government get involved. Appreciate your article and your work defending free speech!!
I was mostly ambivalent about KOSA and other similar legislative undertaking, but Greg's arguments have persuaded a shift towards concern and/or disapproval. My comment here then is not about free speech, but rather your assertion that, "For many kids, cell phones aid in their learning..."
I assume when you use the word "kids" you are talking about K-12th grade students and not "college kids." If my assumption is correct, then as an almost 40-year veteran of teaching kids I can say with near certainty that kids carrying a handheld computer-phone, linked to the internet during the school day, has done nothing but exacerbate the struggles we have faced gaining student attention and engagement in learning. A battery-powered calculator does not "ping" or in any other way signal to a child that something not about the mathematics lesson-activity is going on and "needs" the child's immediate attention. I think the costs-benefits of social media accessible technology in classrooms clearly have been shown to be more costly to kids than beneficial. Tristan Harris and others have argued very persuasively, I think, that capturing and then exploiting attention is a primary aim of social media platforms that can operate through those handheld devices.
Free speech (albeit, crucial for our country and its citizens) aside, learning is not at all aided by the Smart/iphones, but has been undermined.
I was an educator for 33 years. Smartphones do not belong in school. This should be the focus. It is not a free speech issue.
I love reading your arguments, and the fact that you respectfully disagree with your friend and colleague. This is what is missing in our world right now. The ability to respectfully disagree and provide an argument with reasons to support it. This should be a focus in education.
I look forward to hearing your plan for how to resolve this issue for kids, because it's a big one, and it's impacting society in many negative ways.
No KOSA, 50 state laws banning phone turned on in the classroom of a public K-12 school. Subject to confiscation and return at end of the week for first offense, end of quarter/semester for repeat offenses.
University rules that phones turned on in class are subject to confiscation - first time for the day, 2nd offense until the end of the semester.
So we know what not to do, but is there anything we can do? We restrict minors' access to all kinds of things. Allowing them to roam every corner of the internet is not a First Amendment right.
Using algorithms to literally promote sexual content and pornography is not a protected activity. Sites that use algorithms to proactively send you content should be responsible for that content. Common carriers do not curate a collection of sexualized content and send it to you. YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram do. Common carriers do not curate politically extreme posts and send them to you. Social media companies do. Make tech companies responsible for what they actively promote to children and adults. People can find what they are looking for without algorithms that prioritize negative content and degrade discourse. That is not a First Amendment issue.
Is there not a way to regulate social media WITHOUT threatening free speech? The platforms are literally designed to be addictive, whether the content is "good" or "bad". Is there not a compromise that doesn't put the onus solely on the parents?
Things that don't seem to relate to freedom of speech:
- age limits. I think your argument here is thin. We don't let minors into physical spaces that are geared for adult content, so why do we allow them to do so online? (This is the same argument porn companies used to fight id verification on their sites. Those laws are very effective at curbing minor porn access. It makes it a little harder for adults to view, but it's like removing cigarettes behind the counter - totally worth it in my opinion.)
- ban platform features (not bugs) that exacerbate tech addiction. Get rid of likes, endless scrolling, and whatever stupid algorithm Facebook implemented for my FB feed... I don't even see what my friends are doing anymore.
I'm sure there are others, but can we not regulate bad design without infringing on free speech?
And just to preemptively reply to the person who tells me to "just parent better", when my kid's friends are all solely interacting through social media, how am I supposed to control that? Allowing children access to social media too early definitely harms them, but so does total isolation from peers.
I don’t think it’s a good idea for the government to regulate the design of any application. Porn sites do not require IDs for viewing, only for posting, they only have a pop up that asks if you are over 18. Requiring users to submit an official ID to just read X or Substack or Reddit posts is a huge restriction on speech.
LA Act 440 requires age verification for online porn sites with a government issued ID. Other states may have implemented similar laws as well. You can argue that the porn industry is suffering from this restriction of freedom of expression, or you can say they are finally being held accountable for hijacking and damaging naturally developing sexual curiosity in adolescents.
When a product has a known hazard that is a design feature (think nicotine in cigarettes), I do think companies need some form of regulation. What would you suggest doing to rein in companies that profit off of literally addicting their consumers on their product with significant negative side effects? (Genuine question, not sarcasm, I promise.) Always interested in others' POVs.
I agree on both points. Kids do not need cell phones in class. And KOSA gets us in dangerous territory. I would hope any such legislation doesnt get passed or is struck down as unconstitutional. (Preferably the former) When i was a kid my access to television was restricted. This got me reading books instead. Books tend to be a broader and deeper source of information than about any other source. I still dont care much for social media.
The legislature tried twice in the 1990s to pass a law to protect children online. The problem with pornography alone was immediately obvious and was the driver of the original efforts. In both cases, a law was passed and immediately challenged by the ACLU, arguing the imposition on free speech. In both cases, judges sided with the ACLU. In the second case, the judge naively noted, in what I would call famous last words, that a “more effective and less restrictive alternative is readily available” to protect children: I.e. filtering software.(Any parent who has tried to use filtering software or parental controls knows how woefully inadequate these are - primarily because tech companies make it almost impossible to monitor their product - Apple and Snap Chat come immediately to mind….)
It’s been more than 20 years since the first efforts to protect children failed. The natural experiment has run its course. The harm caused by the online world to children is undeniably documented. The argument of free speech is DOA because the speech is not just *said* to those who will listen (or partake of the content), but rather it is a constant barrage *served up* to minors (and adults) against their will through algorithms and user engagement design. We are allowed to *say* anything we want or create any content we choose. But the First Amendment does not allow us to *force* others to hear and see our “speech.” We absolutely must have ways to *turn off* others’ speech. They can still say it, but we cannot be forced to listen, which is the world algorithms have created. Individuals and parents MUST be able to turn off the speech they do not want to experience online.
And children most especially. In a million ways we protect children from decisions they are not able and ready to make. The law prohibits the purchasing and consumption of alcohol and cigarettes, obtaining a driver’s license, or getting tattoos and piercings without parental consent. What if a tattoo parlor or a liquor store knocked on the front door every day offering tattoos or passed out fliers at schools every day or set up shop in school parking lots? We would stop it. But in this argument, platforms that serve our children harmful content and allow strangers to reach out to them unchecked (which has been documented in testimony to congress) are protected by the content creator’s or the pedophile’s free speech. It’s absurd.
Yes, parents have an enormous roll to play. We absolutely must be aggressively proactive in our own homes and schools. But it’s too big for parents to combat alone. There absolutely must be legislation creating parameters and guardrails that social media companies must abide by for their minor users. This is a problem that cannot be tackled by parents alone.
We cannot continue in a world where in the name of free speech these companies not only make it impossible to tune out unwanted speech but actually force speech upon our children through algorithms and relentless engagement design and unfettered messaging from strangers. Your free speech should NOT be my child’s Instagram feed.
Even if the harm is undeniable, cures that are worse than the disease do not become desirable.
And unintended consequences are myriad and frequent.
Limit your children’s hours on the phone. Invest in software you buy that restricts access to, using passwords that only you control and where you can - and do - monitor the usage.
Well-said. While I have personally toned down and even largely dropped my opposition to KOSA (in light of the recent improvements, and also the hopes of forestalling even more restrictive laws like Australia's and worse), that doesn't mean I will actually support it as is.
I love Jon too Greg. However, he must realize he is an EDUCATOR not a LEGISLATOR. Churches and Moral Institutions must ALSO be part of the solution. Individual parents cannot compete with Institutions. We must have institutions that have input FROM PARENTS to push back on Evil, Crime and Corruption. JUDGES AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM ARE NOT THE RIGHT INSTITUTION TO DO THIS. Separation of Church and State REQUIRES the State to STAY OUT OF MORAL ISSUES. THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ISSUES.
I love you too Greg. I look forward to talking about this with you and seeing if we can work through at least some of our disagreements.
And I look forward to seeing the the results of your conversation.
That graphic of the chilling effect of free speech on university campuses is a really crucial aspect of this conversation.
Excellent post that really outlines the potential harms of this legislation. Thank you for writing this. Though I understand your criticism of phones in schools, I think we should empower teachers to make those decisions in their classrooms and be careful not make government mandates about cell phones in schools or pass laws making them illegal to carry on campuses (see: the many teenagers arrested for carrying beepers in the 90s). For many kids, cell phones aid in their learning by functioning as calculators, word processors, and allow for easy documentation of lesson materials like slides. Some restrictions are reasonable imo, but let’s not let the government get involved. Appreciate your article and your work defending free speech!!
I was mostly ambivalent about KOSA and other similar legislative undertaking, but Greg's arguments have persuaded a shift towards concern and/or disapproval. My comment here then is not about free speech, but rather your assertion that, "For many kids, cell phones aid in their learning..."
I assume when you use the word "kids" you are talking about K-12th grade students and not "college kids." If my assumption is correct, then as an almost 40-year veteran of teaching kids I can say with near certainty that kids carrying a handheld computer-phone, linked to the internet during the school day, has done nothing but exacerbate the struggles we have faced gaining student attention and engagement in learning. A battery-powered calculator does not "ping" or in any other way signal to a child that something not about the mathematics lesson-activity is going on and "needs" the child's immediate attention. I think the costs-benefits of social media accessible technology in classrooms clearly have been shown to be more costly to kids than beneficial. Tristan Harris and others have argued very persuasively, I think, that capturing and then exploiting attention is a primary aim of social media platforms that can operate through those handheld devices.
Free speech (albeit, crucial for our country and its citizens) aside, learning is not at all aided by the Smart/iphones, but has been undermined.
I just sent in my FIRE Ember Club membership dues. I urge everyone to do the same.
Thank you, Joe!
Couldn’t agree more. More parenting, less government.
I was an educator for 33 years. Smartphones do not belong in school. This should be the focus. It is not a free speech issue.
I love reading your arguments, and the fact that you respectfully disagree with your friend and colleague. This is what is missing in our world right now. The ability to respectfully disagree and provide an argument with reasons to support it. This should be a focus in education.
I look forward to hearing your plan for how to resolve this issue for kids, because it's a big one, and it's impacting society in many negative ways.
No KOSA, 50 state laws banning phone turned on in the classroom of a public K-12 school. Subject to confiscation and return at end of the week for first offense, end of quarter/semester for repeat offenses.
University rules that phones turned on in class are subject to confiscation - first time for the day, 2nd offense until the end of the semester.
So we know what not to do, but is there anything we can do? We restrict minors' access to all kinds of things. Allowing them to roam every corner of the internet is not a First Amendment right.
Using algorithms to literally promote sexual content and pornography is not a protected activity. Sites that use algorithms to proactively send you content should be responsible for that content. Common carriers do not curate a collection of sexualized content and send it to you. YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram do. Common carriers do not curate politically extreme posts and send them to you. Social media companies do. Make tech companies responsible for what they actively promote to children and adults. People can find what they are looking for without algorithms that prioritize negative content and degrade discourse. That is not a First Amendment issue.
State or local laws banning phones turned on in the classroom.
It is a fallacy to suggest that phones are required for student learning.
Exactly.
Is there not a way to regulate social media WITHOUT threatening free speech? The platforms are literally designed to be addictive, whether the content is "good" or "bad". Is there not a compromise that doesn't put the onus solely on the parents?
Things that don't seem to relate to freedom of speech:
- age limits. I think your argument here is thin. We don't let minors into physical spaces that are geared for adult content, so why do we allow them to do so online? (This is the same argument porn companies used to fight id verification on their sites. Those laws are very effective at curbing minor porn access. It makes it a little harder for adults to view, but it's like removing cigarettes behind the counter - totally worth it in my opinion.)
- ban platform features (not bugs) that exacerbate tech addiction. Get rid of likes, endless scrolling, and whatever stupid algorithm Facebook implemented for my FB feed... I don't even see what my friends are doing anymore.
I'm sure there are others, but can we not regulate bad design without infringing on free speech?
And just to preemptively reply to the person who tells me to "just parent better", when my kid's friends are all solely interacting through social media, how am I supposed to control that? Allowing children access to social media too early definitely harms them, but so does total isolation from peers.
The problem of "collective action."
I don’t think it’s a good idea for the government to regulate the design of any application. Porn sites do not require IDs for viewing, only for posting, they only have a pop up that asks if you are over 18. Requiring users to submit an official ID to just read X or Substack or Reddit posts is a huge restriction on speech.
LA Act 440 requires age verification for online porn sites with a government issued ID. Other states may have implemented similar laws as well. You can argue that the porn industry is suffering from this restriction of freedom of expression, or you can say they are finally being held accountable for hijacking and damaging naturally developing sexual curiosity in adolescents.
When a product has a known hazard that is a design feature (think nicotine in cigarettes), I do think companies need some form of regulation. What would you suggest doing to rein in companies that profit off of literally addicting their consumers on their product with significant negative side effects? (Genuine question, not sarcasm, I promise.) Always interested in others' POVs.
I agree on both points. Kids do not need cell phones in class. And KOSA gets us in dangerous territory. I would hope any such legislation doesnt get passed or is struck down as unconstitutional. (Preferably the former) When i was a kid my access to television was restricted. This got me reading books instead. Books tend to be a broader and deeper source of information than about any other source. I still dont care much for social media.
The legislature tried twice in the 1990s to pass a law to protect children online. The problem with pornography alone was immediately obvious and was the driver of the original efforts. In both cases, a law was passed and immediately challenged by the ACLU, arguing the imposition on free speech. In both cases, judges sided with the ACLU. In the second case, the judge naively noted, in what I would call famous last words, that a “more effective and less restrictive alternative is readily available” to protect children: I.e. filtering software.(Any parent who has tried to use filtering software or parental controls knows how woefully inadequate these are - primarily because tech companies make it almost impossible to monitor their product - Apple and Snap Chat come immediately to mind….)
It’s been more than 20 years since the first efforts to protect children failed. The natural experiment has run its course. The harm caused by the online world to children is undeniably documented. The argument of free speech is DOA because the speech is not just *said* to those who will listen (or partake of the content), but rather it is a constant barrage *served up* to minors (and adults) against their will through algorithms and user engagement design. We are allowed to *say* anything we want or create any content we choose. But the First Amendment does not allow us to *force* others to hear and see our “speech.” We absolutely must have ways to *turn off* others’ speech. They can still say it, but we cannot be forced to listen, which is the world algorithms have created. Individuals and parents MUST be able to turn off the speech they do not want to experience online.
And children most especially. In a million ways we protect children from decisions they are not able and ready to make. The law prohibits the purchasing and consumption of alcohol and cigarettes, obtaining a driver’s license, or getting tattoos and piercings without parental consent. What if a tattoo parlor or a liquor store knocked on the front door every day offering tattoos or passed out fliers at schools every day or set up shop in school parking lots? We would stop it. But in this argument, platforms that serve our children harmful content and allow strangers to reach out to them unchecked (which has been documented in testimony to congress) are protected by the content creator’s or the pedophile’s free speech. It’s absurd.
Yes, parents have an enormous roll to play. We absolutely must be aggressively proactive in our own homes and schools. But it’s too big for parents to combat alone. There absolutely must be legislation creating parameters and guardrails that social media companies must abide by for their minor users. This is a problem that cannot be tackled by parents alone.
We cannot continue in a world where in the name of free speech these companies not only make it impossible to tune out unwanted speech but actually force speech upon our children through algorithms and relentless engagement design and unfettered messaging from strangers. Your free speech should NOT be my child’s Instagram feed.
Even if the harm is undeniable, cures that are worse than the disease do not become desirable.
And unintended consequences are myriad and frequent.
Limit your children’s hours on the phone. Invest in software you buy that restricts access to, using passwords that only you control and where you can - and do - monitor the usage.
Well-said. While I have personally toned down and even largely dropped my opposition to KOSA (in light of the recent improvements, and also the hopes of forestalling even more restrictive laws like Australia's and worse), that doesn't mean I will actually support it as is.
I love Jon too Greg. However, he must realize he is an EDUCATOR not a LEGISLATOR. Churches and Moral Institutions must ALSO be part of the solution. Individual parents cannot compete with Institutions. We must have institutions that have input FROM PARENTS to push back on Evil, Crime and Corruption. JUDGES AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM ARE NOT THE RIGHT INSTITUTION TO DO THIS. Separation of Church and State REQUIRES the State to STAY OUT OF MORAL ISSUES. THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ISSUES.