We don't need a surveillance state to protect kids online
(Illustration by)
Adults have a First Amendment right to look for and access information online, including sexual content.
But House Bill 1053, a bill aimed at limiting minors' access to online content, would require people to undergo an invasive age verification process before accessing adult content online.
As a parent myself, there are certainly online materials that I don't want my children to view, but I don't need a surveillance state rife with unintended consequences to accomplish this goal. Laws that seek to impose age verification systems on sites with adult content might sound reasonable at first, but the devil is in the details.
SD House approves age verification bill; some Democrats raise censorship concerns
Under House Bill 1053, adults would be required to upload personal data, such as a photo ID, with companies that claim to verify their age.
Efforts to childproof the internet like this not only hurt everyone's ability to access information, but also pose numerous threats to our online privacy and safety. If this bill passes, every single website with any amount of 'material harmful to minors' would require all users to upload their government-issued ID, bank account information, or credit card number to prove their age, and make otherwise suitable content completely off-limits for minors. This is akin to barring minors from an entire library because one shelf contains adult materials.
Unlike in-person ID checks, online age verification exposes every website visitor to privacy and security risks. That means it seriously burdens the rights of adults to read, get information, speak and browse online anonymously. Records of our personal information tied to details of the adult content we watch, sexual questions we have, or interests or identities we're exploring could make millions of people vulnerable to harassment, blackmail and exploitation.
Because of that, House Bill 1053 would undoubtedly have a chilling effect on free expression online. The legitimate fear of having personal information exposed may deter adults from accessing legal and consensual adult content, thereby limiting their freedom to explore and express themselves in a private digital space.
The Supreme Court has ruled that states can restrict a minor's access to adult material, but legislators must navigate a delicate balance mandated by the U.S. Constitution. The law cannot inhibit a minor's access while simultaneously burdening an adult's right to access the same material. In a precedent-setting case, Reno v. ACLU, the courts deemed age verification requirements were unconstitutional when a less restrictive alternative exists. For example, the voluntary installation of parental control filters.
In January, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a challenge to a Texas law that, like House Bill 1053, requires people to undergo an age verification process before accessing adult content online. A decision in the case is expected by early summer 2025.
Is there harmful content on the internet for young viewers? Undoubtedly. But not every societal ill requires a solution from the government.
Young people deserve our protection and support, but age-gating the internet is not the answer — especially considering that for the more tech-savvy users, all of these attempts at censorship would fall short anyway.
The only way that a website can determine whether a user is located in a particular state is to use the geolocation data provided by the user's device. But all you need to get around these censors is a virtual public network, or VPN. Kids can easily circumvent the proposed age verification requirements.
Is there harmful content on the internet for young viewers? Undoubtedly. But not every societal ill requires a solution from the government.
In this case, parents already have the tools they need to keep explicit and harmful content away from kids. Built-in parental controls allow us to set screen time limits, review app permissions (such as our kids' camera, location and contacts), block apps and approve downloads, block sites and filter content. Despite the numerous tools parents have to keep their kids safe online, fewer than 15% of parents activate these tools.
Rather than infringing on constitutional rights, we should focus on educating parents about these existing solutions. Allowing loosely regulated surveillance of our online activity is dangerous and opens the door for government censorship.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
8 minutes ago
- UPI
Defense Secretary Hegseth defends LA deployments at Capitol Hill hearing
1 of 5 | Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth testifies at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. Hegseth argued "ICE has the right to safely conduct operations," as he defended the recent deployment of troops to Los Angeles. Photo by Aaron Schwartz/UPI | License Photo June 10 (UPI) -- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sparred with Democrats on Capitol Hill on Tuesday over the decision to send 5,000 Marines and National Guard troops into Los Angeles as some protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids turned violent. Hegseth, a former National Guardsman, testified before the House Appropriations subcommittee, where he defended the decision to deploy troops and the role of ICE. "We ought to be able to enforce immigration law in this country," Hegseth testified. "I think we're entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland." "In Los Angeles, we believed ICE had the right to safely conduct operations," Hegseth added. "We deployed National Guard and the Marines to protect them." Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., asked Hegseth why he was sending "war fighters to cities to interact with civilians?" "ICE agents need to be able to do their job," Hegseth responded. "They are being attacked for doing their job, which is deporting illegal criminals. The governor of California has failed to protect his people, along with the mayor of Los Angeles. And so President Trump has said he will protect our agents and our Guard and Marines." Aguilar fired back against Hegseth's answer and said, "The law also says Mr. Secretary that the orders for these purposes shall be issued through governors of the states." Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota also sparred with Hegseth about the cost of deploying the National Guard and Marines, and whether their absence would impact trainings in other parts of the country. The two talked over each other repeatedly as Hegseth referenced the George Floyd murder protests and accused Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz of "abandoning a police precinct" in 2020. "We're both from Minnesota. I was in the Twin Cities during the riots that followed the murder of George Floyd. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets for days," said McCollum. "At no point did we need Marines to be deployed. This is a deeply unfair position to put our Marines in. Their service should be honored. It should not be exploited." "You are right," Hegseth testified. "We are both originally from Minnesota. Which is why I recall 2020 quite well, when Gov. Walz abandoned a police precinct and allowed it to be burned to the ground -- and also allowed five days of chaos to occur inside the streets of Minneapolis." "We believe that ICE has the right to safely conduct operations in any state and any jurisdiction in the country," Hegseth continued. "Especially after 21 million illegals have crossed our border under the previous administration. ICE should be able to do their job." "Chairman, I have limited time," McCollum declared. "I asked a budget question." After repeated questioning about the budget by several committee members, Hegseth finally gave an answer. "We have a 13% increase in our defense budget and we will have the capability to cover contingencies, which is something the National Guard and the Marines plan for. So we have the funding to cover contingencies, especially ones as important as maintaining law and order in a major American city," Hegseth testified. During the hearing, Hegseth was also questioned about spending cuts to foreign aid programs, including USAID, and staffing cuts at the Defense Department, to which he argued the administration is reducing any program considered "wasteful and duplicitous."
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Associated Press seeks full appeals court hearing on access to Trump administration events
The Associated Press on Tuesday asked for a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, seeking to overturn a three-judge panel's ruling that allowed the Trump administration to continue blocking AP access to some presidential events — a four-month case that has raised questions about what level of journalistic access to the presidency the First Amendment permits. Three judges of that court on Friday, in a 2-1 decision, said it was OK for Trump to continue keeping AP journalists out of Oval Office or other small events out in retaliation over the news outlet's decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico's name. He had sought a pause of a lower court's ruling in AP's favor in April that the administration was improperly punishing the news organization for the content of its speech. 'The decision of the appellate panel to pause the district court's order allows the White House to discriminate and retaliate over words it does not like, a violation of the First Amendment,' AP spokesman Patrick Maks said. 'We are seeking a rehearing of this decision by the full appellate court because an essential American principle is at stake.' A hearing before the full court would change the landscape — and possibly the outcome as well. The two judges who ruled in Trump's favor on Friday had been appointed to the bench by him. The full court consists of nine members appointed by Democratic presidents, and six by Republicans. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a small-group 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. Now, an AP photographer routinely gets access to these events, while text reporters rarely do. ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bolsonaro denies orchestrating Brazil coup in Supreme Court testimony
BRASILIA (Reuters) -Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro denied that he led an attempt to overthrow the government after losing the 2022 election during his trial before the country's Supreme Court on Tuesday, but acknowledged taking part in meetings aimed at reversing the outcome. Bolsonaro said he and senior aides discussed alternatives to accepting the electoral results, including the possibility of deploying military forces and suspending some civil liberties, but he said those proposals were soon dropped. "The feeling was that there was nothing else we could do. We had to swallow the election results," the ex-president said. "I never acted against the Constitution," Bolsonaro added, holding a copy of the country's 1988 charter that re-established democracy after two decades of military rule. In March, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case against Bolsonaro and seven other people, including several military officers, who were charged with plotting a coup to stop Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking office in January 2023. The charges stem from a two-year police investigation into the election-denying movement that culminated in riots by Bolsonaro supporters in the capital in early 2023, a week after Lula took office. Bolsonaro, who was the sixth defendant to testify in the case, spent several minutes of his two hours of testimony defending his administration's achievements and his criticism of the country's electoral system. Dozens of witnesses were previously heard by the court, an indication that the case is moving swiftly and could be concluded by the end of the year, avoiding overlap with campaigning for the 2026 presidential election. Bolsonaro has insisted he will run in that campaign, despite an electoral court decision barring him from seeking public office until 2030. On Monday, Bolsonaro attended the trial to watch testimony from Mauro Cid, his former aide turned whistleblower, and then shook his hand. Cid told the court that the former president reviewed a draft decree that was central to the coup plot and made changes, while keeping a section that ordered the arrest of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is now overseeing the case against Bolsonaro and his allies. On Tuesday, the former president said he only briefly saw the draft decree and never edited it. He also apologized for making unfounded corruption allegations about Supreme Court justices. "Forgive me," he told Moraes. A final ruling on Bolsonaro's case is expected by October.
