Kids have First Amendment rights too. They shouldn’t be banned from social media.

In an effort to contrast themselves from the woke censors of the far left, conservatives have increasingly branded themselves warriors of free speech. Just last November, for instance, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee assailed the Biden Administration for “stifl[ing] lawful First Amendment-protected speech of American citizens in public online settings.” So imagine my surprise at the GOP’s burgeoning interest in banishing minors from cyberspace.

Representative Chris Stuart, a Republican from Utah, introduced the Social Media Child Protection Act, which would bar minors under sixteen years of age from social media and require companies to verify the age of their users. According to Stuart, the hostile “environment” of social media “swallows [minors] up,”  “destroy[ing] their value or sense of self worth.” On the other side of Capitol Hill, meanwhile, GOP Senator Josh Hawley proposed a similar bill, endeavoring “to protect kids online and prevent harm by social media companies.”

No doubt, the congressmen’s hearts are in the right place. Few would deny that social media poses risks to children, as excessive use has been linked to mental health problems like anxiety and depression. But a blanket ban is too harsh a medicine and would suppress the freedom of speech, a right to which children are every bit as entitled as their parents.

Under the First Amendment, Congress may not pass any law “abridging the freedom of speech.” Minors, moreover, “are entitled to a significant degree of First Amendment protection,” their rights having been formally recognized in 1969. But what exactly does “First Amendment protection” entail?

Related: Infantilizing teens won’t protect them online, but it could threaten tech freedom

The protections of the First Amendment are far broader than its plain letter might suggest. The “speech” it guarantees is capacious, encompassing the spoken, written, and virtual word, not to mention symbolic conduct. Congress can no more block speakers from the web than it can ban public assemblies. Were it otherwise, the promise of the First Amendment would ring hollow. After all, social media is today’s public square. The Supreme Court recognized as much in Packingham v. North Carolina, explaining that “users … engage in a wide array of protected First Amendment activity on topics as diverse as human thought.”

Senator Hawley and Representative Stuart sensibly fear for the wellbeing of children, who on social media are vulnerable to exploitation and whose excessive use risks deterioration of mental health. But as Justice Antonin Scalia reminded California when it attempted to ban minors from purchasing violent video games, the “legitimate power to protect children from harm … does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.” Indeed, American tradition supports that proposition: the books we have long read to children — from Snow White to Hansel and Gretel — “contain no shortage of gore.”

Simply put, Senator Hawley and Representative Stuart fail to appreciate that minors are entitled to First Amendment protections. Through Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, kids can access information of public importance and exchange beliefs, informing their worldviews and political development. But perhaps more importantly, social media furnishes unparalleled opportunities for self-expression. In words, photographs, videos, drawings, emoticons, or any of these in combination, kids are able to articulate thoughts relatively inarticulable in other communicative contexts. Thus, the innovative features of social media have become critical tools of communication without which children are deprived of a unique, rich, and effective way to express themselves.

Related Articles

That is not to say that concerns for the online health and safety of children are baseless or disingenuous. In fact, it seems irrefutable —  even common sense —that excessive social media use detracts from the mental health of minors. Yet the proposed solution of banishing millions of prolific users from cyberspace is an overcorrection, and an unconstitutional one at that.

The ultimate responsibility for the health and wellbeing of children rests with their parents or guardians, not the United States federal government. There are, moreover, far less drastic means by which Congress could bolster internet safety without imperiling fundamental liberties. Take, for example, a requirement that social media companies offer effective parental controls. But the question as to whether the government may ban children from social media is not an open one. The First Amendment has answered it for us — and the answer is “no.”

Charles Brandt is a J.D. candidate at the George Washington University Law School.