One of the fundamental tenets of American conservatism, at least until the “Make America Great Again” movement recalibrated the Republican Party, was that the government is the best way to manage your own life and provide for your family. individuals rather than regulatory authorities. Social conservatism has always had an authoritarian bent, while progressives have traditionally promoted what we call the nanny state.
A 2018 BBC article said: “Whether it's forcing British restaurants to print calorie labels on their menus or banning energy drinks for under-18s, the government has no idea how to protect people from themselves. It's full of ideas.” Although the term is of British origin, such policies are prevalent throughout the United States, particularly in California. You can think of any number of recent policies that fit this bill, all of which intervene in our lives to “help” or “uplift” us.
Most of these laws, from bans on single-use plastic bags and oversized soft drinks to restrictions on trans fats and e-cigarettes, have achieved little from a public health or environmental perspective. There are always an infinite number of workarounds that render the edict meaningless. The term nanny state is ideal because it imagines a nagging nanny trying to rob us of our simplest pleasures.
But now conservatives are trying to benefit the left. In Republican-controlled states in the West, lawmakers are treating adults as children by mandating a variety of largely pointless regulations in the name of protecting children from pornography and other nasties on the Internet. A bill has been passed to treat it as such. Everyone wants to protect The Children, so even if such laws impose restrictions on everyone, they are difficult to resist.
The latest craze started in Utah. Utah reportedly passed a content filter law in 2021 that requires all new cell phones and tablets sold or activated in the state to be equipped with filters that block “content that is harmful to minors.” has been done. . The law is conditional on five other states approving similar measures, allowing other like-minded state lawmakers to follow suit. Charges will vary slightly, but ultimately some form of age verification will be required to disable the filter.
It's clearly hypocritical for free-market lawmakers to mandate unsolicited business regulations. Device manufacturers don't always know where their products will be sold or activated. Following California's progressive model, these conservative legislatures are using their power to create de facto national standards. But these are the only problems with these proposals that raise constitutional and privacy concerns.
If these laws are passed, they will certainly be challenged in federal court. Previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions have made clear that legislatures must take the least intrusive approach to restricting public access to websites. These efforts take a hard-line approach by putting content filters on every device. As the courts have found, such laws assume that parents are incapable of protecting their children.
In fact, parents have an almost limitless set of tools. All you need to do is enable the currently provided filters and voluntary verification process. Competitive Enterprise Institute lists a large number of filter blockers from social media companies, internet service providers, gaming companies, web browsers, operating systems, and standalone app controls.
As the free speech group NetChoice argued in testimony against the Utah bill, such measures provide a false sense of security, leading parents to believe their children are protected. Become. Even the best filters are imperfect and require parental involvement. The group also points out that imposing uniform standards will stifle innovation in the market.
There are also serious slippery arguments. If the courts uphold these laws, we can only imagine what California lawmakers will propose. How about mandating filters to block alleged “climate change denialism” and “hate speech”? Conservative nannies need to be careful because they may not get what they want (as H.L. Mencken said, “the good and the hard”).
The bill requires age verification, which is a problem. These requirements he has two forms. Either the user enters their age, or the site asks for actual identification, such as a driver's license. The former is pointless, since any 15-year-old can claim to be 47-years-old. The latter is costly for businesses and scary for us. While you can sue for age verification on actual porn sites, that doesn't apply to all apps and websites. Want to send more personal information to technology companies?
Even more stupidly, device filter charges only apply to phones and tablets. Children still had easy access to obscene content on their laptops, desktops, and gaming consoles. Every child is different, and these filters will ultimately filter out legitimate information. One can only imagine how difficult it must have been for her daughter, who was actively involved in agriculture, to access information about animal breeding. Again, we were acting like parents, but we didn't expect the government to be her nanny.
This column first appeared in The Orange County Register.
