American Compass Dodges KOSA’s Deficiencies

“Critics of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) are making a last-ditch bid to scare policy-makers away by invoking the specter of political censorship,” begins Chris Griswold, policy director at American Compass, responding to the Taxpayer’s Protection Alliance’s (TPA) criticism of his support for the bill. By “last-ditch,” he refers to opposition that began shortly after the bill’s introduction in 2022 and has continued uninterrupted since. By “invoking the specter of political censorship,” he refers to reminders that bureaucrats in Washington have demonstrated a ready willingness to violate the First Amendment.

Griswold states that TPA’s “analogy between going online and walking outside does nothing to refute KOSA’s premise that we should protect children in public spaces.” Well, the analogy is not intended to. Recognizing the internet’s place in society and culture provides nothing more than a conceptual superstructure from which to examine various proposals’ merits and demerits. Moreover, nobody disagrees with the notion that the state has a duty to afford children some degree of protection in both public and private spaces. Such protections must, however, align with prudence and the Constitution. For example, a national speed limit of 35 mph would doubtless save thousands of underage (and adult) lives. But examining all relevant considerations, it becomes clear that imposing one would be unwise.

Readers may assess for themselves the merits of Griswold’s contention that lawmakers should, as a public-policy matter, view social-media platforms like nightclubs or other places that are presumptively unsuitable for children. TPA offers a different analogy. Note, however, that checking identification at a bar or cigarette store does not implicate anybody’s speech rights or threaten the rights of adults as KOSA would.

TPA’s debate with American Compass revolves around KOSA, a specific bill that contains specific policy proposals. Regarding these proposals’ alleged deficiencies, however, Griswold provides little clarity, resorting to abstractions to rebut specific criticisms. Even were his big-picture analogies correct, KOSA would remain a dangerous bill.

Nobody argues “we cannot act” (Griswold’s words) to protect children online. Yet, ineffective, overbroad, and unconstitutional policy solutions will not perfect the imperfect status quo. While doing something good is preferable to doing nothing, doing nothing is preferable to doing something bad. Conservatives ought to fear “bold, persistent experimentation” as well as Griswold’s casual dismissal of free-speech concerns. Policymakers’ noble intentions do not exempt them from the Bill of Rights’ requirements.

Griswold’s rebuttal simply ignores TPA’s primary speech-related criticisms of KOSA. First off, unlike his November criticism of anti-KOSA advocates, his recent op-ed does not contain the facially absurd claim that the bill’s “language is narrowly tailored.” An implied concession, perhaps. He continues to insist, however, that KOSA would provide the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with helpful guidance, with “a more narrow and concrete focus for regulation.” Perhaps in the very broadest sense, but this “focus” would be accompanied with new powers to police speech online – powers that radical FTC Chair Lina would have tremendous, and largely arbitrary, latitude to interpret and enforce.

Next, Griswold again fails entirely to acknowledge recent censorial efforts by the FTC, the Biden administration, and state attorneys general. He passingly derides concerns that rogue officials might abuse KOSA’s vague and expansive power grants yet goes silent on recent instances in which they did just that.

Dispatching strawmen at every turn, Griswold accuses TPA (and others) of “advocating only that no one enforce child-safety rules,” “arguing that Big Tech should be free to engage with children as ordinary consumers,” and providing no affirmative solutions to protect children online. However, opposing KOSA’s disastrous proposals reflects opposition to those proposals only – not advocacy for a fully deregulated internet.

Federal public policy solutions alone, however, are insufficient. Like most serious societal issues, ameliorating the internet’s harms to children requires extensive action in the local and private spheres – from parents, institutions of civil society, local education officials, etc. Just as recognizing social harms may stem from declining religiosity does not justify the imposition of a national religion, recognizing social media’s harms does justify abandoning constitutional conservatism and embracing dangerous and ineffective remedies. In fact, lawmakers’ enthusiasm for heavy-handed and unconstitutional regulatory schemes has diverted focus and political capital that otherwise could have propelled such eminently sensible and badly needed reforms as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)’s Invest in Child Safety Act.

TPA encourages readers to compare TPA’s arguments with those of American Compass. Read TPA’s original op-ed, Griswold’s criticism, TPA’s response, and Griswold’s response.