Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Speaking of bad legislation, there is a bill that past
the Colorado legislature this past session, House Bill twenty four
DASH eleven thirty six, the name of which is Healthier
Social Media Use by Youth. And I will note before
(00:20):
we talk to my guest who is challenging this in court,
that this bill actually had bipartisan support. It was not
just a Democrat bill, as so many bills are in.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Colorado these days.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
This actually had Republicans on the bill as well. But
net Choice and my guest, Paul Tasky, who was co
director of the litigation center at net Choice, think that
this bill has some serious constitutional flaws their website, by
the way, netchoice dot org. Paul Tasky, Welcome to Kaaway,
Thanks for.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Being here, Thanks for having me. Ros's great to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Okay, I would like you to just take a few
seconds and tell us as objectively as you can before
you talk about your objections what this bill does, and
then we'll talk about what this bill does that you
think it should is unconstitutional.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Sure, so the bill does a couple of different things.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
One portion of the law requires that Colorado create a
resource bank for use by various state agencies. Various state
officials about the purported harms of social media. It's supposed
to collect scientific information, different research reports, sources that the
state curates and thinks are worth compiling. And then a
(01:39):
separate section of the bill requires that social media companies
display a warning label referencing that state selected information about
the purported harms of social media, and they have to
display that on the website. There are a couple of
different options, but they have to display it essentially every
(01:59):
hour and then every certain amount of time after that.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
And can we dispense with the first half of that
as far as your As far as objections, it seems
like your main problem is with the second thing you described.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
So our objections are entirely related to the second half
of the bill. We take the position strongly that Colorado
is entitled to have its own view of social media.
It is entitled to get that message out there through
its own surguates, through its officials, through any sort of
campaign that they want to undertake, whether that be putting
flyers to parents at PTA meetings, whether that be buying
(02:34):
digital ad spaces on radio shows like this, whether it
be you know, putting up billboards across the city and
across the state. But what they can't do, and this
gets to our problems with the bill in the second half,
is they can't compel others. They can't compel private actors
or social media companies to convey the state's message the
state's messages this is harmful. And they can't force social
(02:56):
media companies to adopt the state's belief.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
What if social media companies agree to it. And I
don't know if they've even't really tried that because I'm
what I'm trying to think about here is whether there
is some kind of legal analog to warning labels on cigarettes.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
So there's a very big distinction in my view and
in doctrine specifically between things like product warning labels and
warning labels for speech. So I like to sort of
contrast this to some other warning labels that we see
related to other things, like you see the you see
the movie industry as the guidance of PG G PG
(03:34):
thirteen rated R those you know, warning labels associated with
like the content appropriateness of the speech, but those as
a crucial distinction that is voluntarily adopted by the movie industry.
And you see the same thing in the video game
space with the rating system of E for everyone, T
for teen, and for mature. All of those rating systems
(03:54):
are voluntarily adopted by the industry themselves, and so social
media companies can volunteer farely adopt things where they think,
you know, oh hey, if you've been on our service
for too long, we would suggest that you get off,
and they are more than willing to do that. And
the companies have been doing that. You know, YouTube has
some of this, Facebook and Meta have been rolling out
(04:15):
different parental controls over.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
The last few years.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
But the distinction really is when you get the government
to force that when it deals with speech, that is
a whole different kettle of fish.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
We're talking with Paul Tasky from net Choice. The lawsuit
that net Choice is filed is known in the courts
now as net Choice versus Wiser. Wiser of course, being
Colorado Attorney General Phil Wiser, we got a little bit
less than less than two minutes left.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Is there precedent for this case that you're bringing. Yes,
there is plenty of precedent for cases like this. The
courts have dealt with compelled speech, you know, since they
started looking at the First Amendment. You know, We've had
compelled speech cases during World War Two, and the court
actually has a beautiful line, it's one of my favorites,
(05:04):
where they say, essentially that if there is one fixed
star in our constitutional constellation, it is that the government
does not get to decide, you know, what shall be
orthodox in politics, in religion, and various other areas of speech.
So that is a core tenant that we are bringing
in this lawsuit, that the government can't force you to
do that. And we've seen this happen in even things
(05:25):
like license plates where the government issues the license plate,
but the government can't put a message on there that
other people are forced to display. So you know, it
happened in New Hampshire in the seventies where a religious
couple objected to the message that New Hampshire wanted to
put on the drivers are on the license plate for
their car, and the court held that that was compelled speech.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
You can't do that, And we're.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Just about out of time, but I want to share
with listeners a part of the summary of this bill.
This is directly from the Colorado Legislature's website.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
On or after January first, twenty twenty sixth.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
The Act requires a social media platform to establish a
function that provides a user who is under the age
of eighteen with information about social media that helps the
user understand the impact of social media use on the
developing brain and the mental and physical health of youth,
or displays a notification every thirty minutes when the user
has spent an hour on social media platforms in a
(06:20):
twenty four hour period, or is on a social media
platform between the hours of ten pm and six am.
So that's exactly the compelled speech that Net Choice objects to.
All right, just about a time, tell me the next steps,
how this is going to play out in court and when.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
So the next steps We've had a hearing in front
of the judge, so now it's all up to the court.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
The court will rule.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
We've asked for a ruling before the effected date, so
before January first, But in terms of when the court
might issue that decision, that's totally up to the court,
and we're just.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Going to have to sit and wait.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
So, as this is a constitutional challenge, I'm guessing this
at federal court rather than a state court.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
But I want to assume.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
That, yes, so we are in the federal district court
for the District of Colorado.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
All Right, yeah, look, I'm pretty much of a free
speech absolutist.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
I do think that.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
I do think there are a lot of very serious
problems caused among our kids by social media, but that
doesn't mean you violate the Constitution to fix them. I
do hope a lot of these social media companies will
voluntarily find ways to hurt our kids less. But in
the meantime, the Constitution comes first. Paul Tasky is co
director of the net Choice Litigation Center netchoice dot org. Paul,
(07:37):
please keep in touch so when there is, you know,
news on this.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Case, we'll get you back on good to Thank you, Paul,
appreciate it.
Speaking of bad legislation, there is a bill that past
the Colorado legislature this past session, House Bill twenty four
DASH eleven thirty six, the name of which is Healthier
Social Media Use by Youth. And I will note before
(00:20):
we talk to my guest who is challenging this in court,
that this bill actually had bipartisan support. It was not
just a Democrat bill, as so many bills are in.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Colorado these days.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
This actually had Republicans on the bill as well. But
net Choice and my guest, Paul Tasky, who was co
director of the litigation center at net Choice, think that
this bill has some serious constitutional flaws their website, by
the way, netchoice dot org. Paul Tasky, Welcome to Kaaway,
Thanks for.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Being here, Thanks for having me. Ros's great to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Okay, I would like you to just take a few
seconds and tell us as objectively as you can before
you talk about your objections what this bill does, and
then we'll talk about what this bill does that you
think it should is unconstitutional.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Sure, so the bill does a couple of different things.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
One portion of the law requires that Colorado create a
resource bank for use by various state agencies. Various state
officials about the purported harms of social media. It's supposed
to collect scientific information, different research reports, sources that the
state curates and thinks are worth compiling. And then a
(01:39):
separate section of the bill requires that social media companies
display a warning label referencing that state selected information about
the purported harms of social media, and they have to
display that on the website. There are a couple of
different options, but they have to display it essentially every
(01:59):
hour and then every certain amount of time after that.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
And can we dispense with the first half of that
as far as your As far as objections, it seems
like your main problem is with the second thing you described.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
So our objections are entirely related to the second half
of the bill. We take the position strongly that Colorado
is entitled to have its own view of social media.
It is entitled to get that message out there through
its own surguates, through its officials, through any sort of
campaign that they want to undertake, whether that be putting
flyers to parents at PTA meetings, whether that be buying
(02:34):
digital ad spaces on radio shows like this, whether it
be you know, putting up billboards across the city and
across the state. But what they can't do, and this
gets to our problems with the bill in the second half,
is they can't compel others. They can't compel private actors
or social media companies to convey the state's message the
state's messages this is harmful. And they can't force social
(02:56):
media companies to adopt the state's belief.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
What if social media companies agree to it. And I
don't know if they've even't really tried that because I'm
what I'm trying to think about here is whether there
is some kind of legal analog to warning labels on cigarettes.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
So there's a very big distinction in my view and
in doctrine specifically between things like product warning labels and
warning labels for speech. So I like to sort of
contrast this to some other warning labels that we see
related to other things, like you see the you see
the movie industry as the guidance of PG G PG
(03:34):
thirteen rated R those you know, warning labels associated with
like the content appropriateness of the speech, but those as
a crucial distinction that is voluntarily adopted by the movie industry.
And you see the same thing in the video game
space with the rating system of E for everyone, T
for teen, and for mature. All of those rating systems
(03:54):
are voluntarily adopted by the industry themselves, and so social
media companies can volunteer farely adopt things where they think,
you know, oh hey, if you've been on our service
for too long, we would suggest that you get off,
and they are more than willing to do that. And
the companies have been doing that. You know, YouTube has
some of this, Facebook and Meta have been rolling out
(04:15):
different parental controls over.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
The last few years.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
But the distinction really is when you get the government
to force that when it deals with speech, that is
a whole different kettle of fish.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
We're talking with Paul Tasky from net Choice. The lawsuit
that net Choice is filed is known in the courts
now as net Choice versus Wiser. Wiser of course, being
Colorado Attorney General Phil Wiser, we got a little bit
less than less than two minutes left.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Is there precedent for this case that you're bringing. Yes,
there is plenty of precedent for cases like this. The
courts have dealt with compelled speech, you know, since they
started looking at the First Amendment. You know, We've had
compelled speech cases during World War Two, and the court
actually has a beautiful line, it's one of my favorites,
(05:04):
where they say, essentially that if there is one fixed
star in our constitutional constellation, it is that the government
does not get to decide, you know, what shall be
orthodox in politics, in religion, and various other areas of speech.
So that is a core tenant that we are bringing
in this lawsuit, that the government can't force you to
do that. And we've seen this happen in even things
(05:25):
like license plates where the government issues the license plate,
but the government can't put a message on there that
other people are forced to display. So you know, it
happened in New Hampshire in the seventies where a religious
couple objected to the message that New Hampshire wanted to
put on the drivers are on the license plate for
their car, and the court held that that was compelled speech.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
You can't do that, And we're.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Just about out of time, but I want to share
with listeners a part of the summary of this bill.
This is directly from the Colorado Legislature's website.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
On or after January first, twenty twenty sixth.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
The Act requires a social media platform to establish a
function that provides a user who is under the age
of eighteen with information about social media that helps the
user understand the impact of social media use on the
developing brain and the mental and physical health of youth,
or displays a notification every thirty minutes when the user
has spent an hour on social media platforms in a
(06:20):
twenty four hour period, or is on a social media
platform between the hours of ten pm and six am.
So that's exactly the compelled speech that Net Choice objects to.
All right, just about a time, tell me the next steps,
how this is going to play out in court and when.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
So the next steps We've had a hearing in front
of the judge, so now it's all up to the court.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
The court will rule.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
We've asked for a ruling before the effected date, so
before January first, But in terms of when the court
might issue that decision, that's totally up to the court,
and we're just.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Going to have to sit and wait.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
So, as this is a constitutional challenge, I'm guessing this
at federal court rather than a state court.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
But I want to assume.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
That, yes, so we are in the federal district court
for the District of Colorado.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
All Right, yeah, look, I'm pretty much of a free
speech absolutist.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
I do think that.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
I do think there are a lot of very serious
problems caused among our kids by social media, but that
doesn't mean you violate the Constitution to fix them. I
do hope a lot of these social media companies will
voluntarily find ways to hurt our kids less. But in
the meantime, the Constitution comes first. Paul Tasky is co
director of the net Choice Litigation Center netchoice dot org. Paul,
(07:37):
please keep in touch so when there is, you know,
news on this.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Case, we'll get you back on good to Thank you, Paul,
appreciate it.
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!