Notes

{The targeted dangers include anxiety, depression, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, "addiction-like behaviors," physical violence, online bullying, harassment, sexual exploitation and abuse, "financial harms," and promotion of "narcotic drugs," tobacco products, alcohol, or gambling.} This includes information on how to deal with these issues and how to seek help with them. This can endanger children and can put more children at risk of serious mental health issues, self harm, and suicide. This is because the less information there is available to a person about a subject, the more likely they are to be unaware of how to help themselves or seek help from others when they need it, and are therefore at increased risk.

{An earlier version of KOSA provoked criticism from civil libertarians who warned that it would effectively require platforms to verify users' ages, which would entail collecting personal information. That was a clear threat to internet users of all ages who want to engage in speech without revealing their identities, a well-established First Amendment right. In response to that concern, the latest version of KOSA revises the duty-of-care test and explicitly says it does not require "age gating or age verification." But given the burdens the bill imposes and the uncertainty about what counts as "knowledge fairly implied," platforms still would have a strong incentive to exclude minors or minimize the number of users who are younger than 17. "The only way to accomplish either is to age-verify all users," TechFreedom notes. "These changes merely trade a clear, explicit mandate for a vague, implicit one; the unconstitutional effect on anonymous expression will be the same."} Just by restricting minors' access to content & information about the aforementioned topics, the american first amendment is being violated. Not only are these children being restricted from seeing content about issues they may have, they're also going to be unable to reach out for assistance about these issues because they won't be able to see any content replying to them because they won't be allowed to see anything containing the subject their struggling with. Therefore, these children are not only being "protected" from resources that might save their life, they're also going to have their right to free speech taken away if their speech concerns any of the aforementioned topics.


{The vast majority of speech that people might consider unsuitable for minors is protected by the First Amendment, which means restricting access to it based on a government mandate is constitutionally problematic. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made that point in cases involving the internet and violent video games. The powers granted by KOSA would invite more unconstitutional mischief, especially in the hands of ideologically driven, politically ambitious attorneys general, who could decide to target "hate speech," discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity, or other controversial content they view as harmful. Although that might not be the destination that KOSA's supporters have in mind, the road they are paving with their good intentions includes dangerous detours with clearly marked signs.} The so-called "controversial content" that is at risk of being hidden from minors is essential information. If it weren't for the information accessible online, there would be many more queer, disabled, or otherwise minoritized children and youths dead from suicide than we already have, a number which is already too high. If KOSA's goal is to protect children from harm online, there is obviously need for a better way than is planned, because it is extremely clear how much KOSA will do the exact opposite.