California Politicians Embarrass Themselves By Calling For ‘Warning Labels’ On Social Media

Can we add a warning label to the First Amendment that says Actually reading this can cause extreme embarrassment to grandstanding politicians"?

California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, has just lost two separate cases in the Ninth Circuit regarding social media laws he strongly supported, which the court said violated the First Amendment. You would think that maybe, just maybe, he'd take a step back and brush up on how the First Amendment works, and figure out why he's getting these fairly basic things so wrong and so unconstitutional.

Tragically, he's not.

Just the fact that he flat out lied to the public and declared victory in one of the cases he lost should give you a sense of Bonta's priorities in spitting on the First Amendment. But now he's doubling down.

Earlier this week, he called on Congress" to pass a law requiring warning labels" on social media.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a bipartisan coalition of 42 attorneys general in sending a letter to Congress supporting the United States Surgeon General's recent call for Congress to require a surgeon general's warning on social media platforms. Young people are facing a mental health crisis fueled by social media. The attorneys general argue that by mandating a surgeon general's warning on algorithm-driven social media platforms, Congress can address the growing crisis and protect future generations of Americans.

Social media companies have continuously demonstrated an unwillingness to tackle the youth mental health crisis, instead looking to dig in deeper for the sake of profits,"said Attorney General Bonta.Warning labels on social media are a clear and frank way to communicate the risks that social media engagement poses to young users. Just like we are certain of the risk of alcohol or cigarette use, we are certain of the mental health risks of social media use. I urge Congress to adopt this commonsense step that complements California's work to protect our children and teens."

The problem is that (1) this is unconstitutional, and (2) this is all nonsense. Yes, the Surgeon General called for this, but as we explained, he was also confused. His own report on the matter showed that for many kids social media is actually beneficial, and there remains no evidence that he could find that social media is inherently harmful. The actual research on this stuff continues to find no actual evidence of harm.

Study after study after study looks at this and comes up empty. At best, they find that for kids who need real mental health support and aren't getting it, they may turn to social media and spend excess amounts of time there. But this is a small percentage of kids, who would be better served by getting the mental health support that they need and deserve.

For most others, there is no evidence of any kind of harm. And, as one of the leading researchers in this field, Candice Odgers, has pointed out, demonizing a tool that many people like to use or are expected to use, does real harm to people. It will actually make kids feel worse about themselves for doing a very natural thing and trying to communicate with friends and family.

This is a giant moral panic, no different than similar moral panics about chess, the waltz, novels, bicycles, radio, television, pinball, dungeons & dragons, rock music, and more.

And it's making people like Bonta look incredibly foolish.

As for why it's unconstitutional, it's a form of compelled speech. Yes, certain kinds of mandated warning labels have been found to be okay, but only in cases when the science is absolute and incontrovertible. That's for things like actual toxins that literally poison your bloodstream.

Speech is not that.

Mandated warning labels" about speech are so obviously unconstitutional that it's embarrassing. Indeed, the idea of mandatory health warnings on websites is so ridiculous that even the crazy Fifth Circuit thought they were a bridge too far for just adult content websites. Even in the case that Rob Bonta lost just last week, the court highlighted to him directly that you can't just mandate websites add speech about content on their site.

Did he read that decision? Did he understand it? Or did he just decide he could ignore it because it was embarrassing to the moral panic he supports?

People keep telling me that Bonta is a smart, thoughtful lawyer, but over and over again he seems to have fallen sway to a ridiculous moral panic, against all evidence and against the Constitution he's supposed to be protecting and upholding.

Even worse, this nonsense is trickling down" elsewhere. San Mateo County, where I live, work, and pay taxes, just unanimously passed a resolution supporting Bonta's call. It's also home to Meta, YouTube, and where tons of employees of social media companies work.

San Mateo County, home to tech giant Meta, urged Congress to pass legislation requiring social media companies to add labels to their platforms warning people about their potential to harm users' mental health.

The Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday, the same day 42 state attorneys general, including California's Rob Bonta, called on Congress to address the mental health risks associated with social media.

Given where they are, you'd think that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors would... maybe actually talk to some experts first? Hell, my office is literally blocks away from the County offices. I'd be happy to walk the Supervisors through a presentation of all of the evidence, including those found in the Surgeon General's report, the American Psychological Association's report, one from the National Academies of Science, and a massive meta-study from the Journal of Pediatrics.

It doesn't show any actual causal connection for harm and actually suggests many other reasons for the teen mental health crisis today.

David Canepa, the San Mateo County Supervisor who pushed this resolution, also seems wholly unfamiliar with how the First Amendment works:

All politics is local," Canepa said. For example, if there's something racist or anti-Semitic, there needs to be a label. As the county board, we're asking them to address this problem."

Canepa's offices are, again, right down the street from my own. I'd love to come by his office and have him to play Moderator Mayhem or Trust & Safety Tycoon, and then see if he still feels that (1) companies aren't trying (because they are), or (2) that there's some easy way to label" such content.

This stuff is way more difficult than bumbling, ignorant, grandstanding politicians recognize. The government can no more mandate that social media place warnings on social media, than they could demand that newspapers refuse to cover their opponents in elections. The First Amendment means the government has to stay out of this stuff.

Perhaps Rob Bonta himself needs a warning label: repeated exposure to my lack of understanding of the Constitution or the facts may cause severe eye-rolling." Because it appears that Bonta's misunderstanding of some fundamentals around the First Amendment are trickling down to local politicians as well.