Nearly 200 School Districts Are Suing Social Media Platforms

Plus: court strikes down Arizona law against filming cops, GOP candidates want to cut Social Security for young people, and more…

ELIZABETH NOLAN BROWN

The lawsuits come as part of a growing movement to childproof the internet. In Congress and in states across the country, lawmakers are proposing measures to make websites verify visitor ages, block minors from having accounts, and more.

But the school district lawsuits also represent a novel strategy in the war on social media.

We’ve also seen civil lawsuits filed by individuals and families who say social media companies contributed to terrorist attacks, sex trafficking ventures, or kids and teens engaging in risky behavior; most of these have been thrown out because Section 230 immunizes platforms against civil suits based on third-party speech. School districts suing, however, is relatively new.

“School districts say teachers and administrators waste valuable time responding to cyberbullying and other disciplinary problems, adding new training and school policies around social-media use, and counseling youths whose addiction to online apps is leading to anxiety, depression or suicidal thoughts,” reports the Journal.

The schools’ reasoning seems flimsy. Evidence that social media causes widespread mental health issues in minors is scarce. Bullying among teens is an issue with or without social media. And—like it or not—responding to behavioral, mental health, and interpersonal issues among students is simply part of running an educational institution. School administrators might like some special payout from tech companies to help them do their jobs, but there’s no real practical, moral, or legal justification for granting this.

The schools argue that Section 230 doesn’t apply here because “social-media companies have created an addictive product that pushes destructive content to youth—and that a product, unlike content, doesn’t enjoy Section 230 protections,” notes the Journal.

This is just the latest version of an argument that’s been made in courts many times: that it’s the way social media companies are set up—their product design, their functionality, their algorithms, etc.—that causes harm, not the third-party speech they transmit per se. But this argument doesn’t pass the common sense test: if the underlying content is not an issue—if it’s speech that is perfectly benign and unlikely to trigger any ill feelings or fixating or “addiction” in teens—then how can the way it’s being presented be an issue?

It’s also an argument that doesn’t pass legal muster, with judge after judge throwing out lawsuits that try to circumvent Section 230 by saying their claims are about product design or functionality and not speech. The tech companies are correct when they wrote in a joint brief last month that “the alleged defects” in their products “are inescapably linked to the publication of third-party content.”

Each new trend in civil suits against tech companies seems driven by enterprising lawyers seeking a payout. And, as the Journal article makes clear, this one is no exception:

“Plaintiffs’ lawyers are pitching school boards throughout the country to file lawsuits against social-media companies on allegations that their apps cause classroom disciplinary problems and mental-health issues, diverting resources from education,” notes the Journal. “William Shinoff, a lawyer with California firm Frantz Law Group, said he has personally presented to more than 100 board meetings and that his firm has 500 school districts signed up to sue. … His firm and others typically sign agreements giving the lawyers 25% of any recovery.”

FREE MINDS

FREE MARKETS

Former vice president Mike Pence and former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley have taken similar positions since launching their presidential campaigns. From the earliest days of his 2016 run, Trump has vowed not to touch either Social Security or Medicare — a break from GOP orthodoxy that has shifted the party’s views — and has more recently hammered DeSantis for wanting to cut the program.

“When people say that we’re going to somehow cut seniors, that is totally not true,” DeSantis said on Fox News. “Talking about making changes for people in their 30s and their 40s so the program’s viable — that’s a much different thing, and something I think there’s going to need to be discussion on.”

On Monday, Pence told Fox Business: “I’m glad to see another candidate in this primary has been willing to step up and talk about that.”

QUICK HITS

• The last Hollywood writers’ strike fueled the rise of reality TV. “The latest walkout likely will help turn established actors into TikTok stars — and vice versa,” suggests The Washington Post.

• Joshua Bosire was pulled over in 2019 for driving seven miles above the speed limit. He’s now “one of five motorists — detained by state troopers between 2017 and 2019 — to argue that the Kansas Highway Patrol violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure,” reports Tobi Raji. “On Friday, a federal judge agreed.”

• A new USA TODAY Network/Suffolk University poll of Ohio voters found that a proposal to amend the state Constitution to guarantee reproductive freedom, including the right to an abortion, is “backed by a double-digit margin, 58%-32%. Significant support crossed partisan lines, including a third of Republicans,” notes USA Today.

• How foster-parent red tape hurts families and taxpayers.

Since starting at Reason in 2014, Brown has won multiple awards for her writing on the U.S. government’s war on sex. Brown’s writing has also appeared in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Daily Beast, Buzzfeed, Playboy, Fox News, Politico, The Week, and numerous other publications. You can follow her on Twitter @ENBrown.

GET REASON MAGAZINE