As libertarian conservatives, we believe in limited government intervention in the lives of individuals and the preservation of personal freedoms. That's why we're troubled by Senator Josh Hawley's recent attack on parental rights with his bill to federally mandate a minimum requirement age of 16 for social media users and require social media companies to verify that age before allowing a user on their site.
First and foremost, Senator Hawley's bill is a direct attack on parental rights. It assumes that parents cannot be trusted to make decisions about their children's social media use. Instead, it places that responsibility in the hands of the federal government and social media companies. This is an infringement on the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit and to make decisions that are in the best interest of their own family.
Furthermore, the bill is misguided in its attempt to protect children from the dangers of social media. While it’s true that social media can have negative effects on children's mental health and well-being, a one-size-fits-all approach is not the solution. Children mature at different rates, and what might be appropriate for one 16-year-old might not be appropriate for another. It’s up to parents to make informed decisions about their children's social media use, taking into account their individual needs and circumstances.
In addition, the bill places an undue burden on social media companies to verify the age of their users. While it’s important to prevent children from accessing inappropriate content, this should be the responsibility of parents, not private companies. The government should not be dictating how these companies operate and should not be punishing them for failing to comply with arbitrary age requirements.
Moreover, the bill is a violation of the principles of free speech and free enterprise. By mandating age restrictions, the government is essentially censoring certain forms of speech and limiting the ability of social media companies to operate as they see fit. This is a dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching implications for the future of free speech online.
Finally, it’s important to note that there’s no evidence to suggest that mandating a minimum age requirement of 16 for social media use would be effective in reducing the negative effects of social media on children. It’s simply a knee-jerk reaction to a complex issue that requires nuanced solutions.
In conclusion, Senator Josh Hawley's bill to federally mandate a minimum requirement age of 16 for social media users is a misguided attempt to protect children that infringes on parental rights, limits free speech, and places an undue burden on social media companies. As libertarian conservatives, we believe that individuals should be free to make their own decisions and that the government should not be in the business of dictating how people live their lives. It’s up to parents to make informed decisions about their children's social media use, and it’s up to social media companies to operate as they see fit, within the bounds of the law. We think we should keep the government out of our homes not create more ways to let them in the door... how about you? Let us know in the comments!
Written By: Stephen Despin
February 14, 2023
Stephen Despin is a libertarian-conservative, blogger, and grassroots organizer, who's worked extensively in grassroots advocacy, campaigns, and lobbying for the past 6 years. As the founder of Talk Politics, he's become a voice in libertarian-conservative politics and has helped to shape the conversation around a variety of issues. Stephen is highly skilled in digital organizing and social media management and has been recognized for his ability to build effective and engaging online communities. He's a tireless advocate for limited government, personal freedom, and individual responsibility, and will continue to play an important role in shaping the libertarian-conservative movement.