Editorial

Regulating cell phones for minors

Thursday, January 30, 2025

Nebraska’s Legislative Bill 383, formally known as the Parental Rights in Social Media Act, has brought the debate over youth and social media use to center stage. Introduced by District 43 (Mullen) Senator Tanya Storer, the bill mandates social media platforms to verify the age of users and requires parental consent for minors. The proposal includes stringent measures such as signed parental oaths and government-issued ID verification, aiming to shield children from the dangers of excessive social media exposure. If enacted, the law would take effect on January 1, 2026.

Senator Storer’s argument is rooted in alarming data about the psychological toll of social media on young people. Rising rates of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicidal ideation have been linked to social media use, along with issues like body dysmorphia and other mental health concerns. Storer draws parallels between her bill and existing regulations for age verification in industries like alcohol sales, gambling, and adult content, emphasizing that protecting minors is a widely accepted societal norm.

However, this legislation is not without controversy. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has voiced strong opposition, citing concerns over free speech and privacy rights. Policy Counsel Dylan Severino argues that, unlike adult websites, social media platforms are public forums designed for communication and expression, which are protected under the First Amendment. Severino also raises privacy alarms about requiring minors to submit digitized IDs, which could potentially expose sensitive information despite the bill’s assurances that data would not be retained.

Adding to the complexity of the debate, recent research has highlighted new risks associated with excessive smartphone use. A study published this month suggests that prolonged screen exposure can lead to hallucinations, further fueling fears about the potential harms of unregulated access to digital devices. While the scientific community continues to explore these findings, they serve as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of technology overuse, particularly among impressionable youth.

Meanwhile, the broader conversation around social media regulation is unfolding against the backdrop of an off/on/off-again TikTok ban in the United States. The ban, which stems from concerns over national security and data privacy, has been temporarily paused but remains a flashpoint for discussions about the role of government in regulating technology. This parallel debate underscores the tension between safeguarding public interests and upholding individual freedoms in an increasingly digital world.

Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers has expressed confidence in the enforceability of LB383, suggesting that the bill’s provisions are crafted to withstand legal scrutiny. The Judiciary Committee has yet to schedule a hearing, leaving the future of the bill uncertain.

At its core, LB383 raises a fundamental question: Should the government step in to regulate social media use among minors, or does this responsibility rest with parents? Proponents of the bill argue that legislative action is necessary to address the pervasive influence of social media, which often outpaces parents’ ability to monitor and control their children’s online activity. Critics counter that laws like LB383 risk overreach and may inadvertently undermine parental authority by shifting responsibility to the state.

While we are inclined to agree that excessive smartphone use is detrimental to minors and that social media is unquestionably a breeding ground for negative influences, we must ask whether government intervention is the appropriate solution. The discipline required to navigate these challenges is, at its heart, a matter of parental responsibility. Legislating such discipline risks creating a precedent where the state—rather than families—dictates the boundaries of personal and moral development. As the debate over LB383 unfolds, we urge policymakers to consider not only the immediate benefits but also the broader implications of entrusting the government with such authority.

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: