Rand Paul Was Right To Block the Senate's Attempt To Censor the Internet

The bill’s “duty of care” could pressure platforms to suppress lawful speech in the name of protecting children.

Congress' latest attempt to regulate the internet has been stalled until after the midterms.

On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) blocked efforts to pass the Senate's Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)—a bill that would legally require platforms to "exercise reasonable care" in creating any "design feature" that could foreseeably harm minors—through unanimous consent (a fast-track procedure that would only pass if no senator objects). Paul objected, and because the Senate has left Washington until after the midterm elections, KOSA has been stalled for the time being.

"If good intentions created laws, or created good laws, there would be no need for congressional debate," said Paul in his objection. "I have no doubt that the authors of this bill genuinely want to protect children, but the bill they have written promises to be a Pandora's box of unintended consequences." He argued that KOSA would "impose an unprecedented duty of care" on platforms, and that this will "inevitably lead" to "the stifling of First Amendment protected speech."

"Free minds and parental guidance are the best means to protect our children online," Paul added.

The bill has been floated in the halls of Congress for more than four years, and the free speech fight Paul raised this week has followed it almost from the beginning. In June, the House passed online-safety legislation incorporating parts of KOSA but omitted its "duty of care" requirement, while the Senate Commerce Committee advanced a version retaining it in August (which is the version Paul blocked).

Civil liberties groups have expressed concern that, in an attempt to moderate content that regulators deem harmful to children, platforms will inadvertently suppress lawful speech. According to the bill, such "harms" can include content about eating disorders, substance abuse, depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, harassment, drugs, tobacco, alcohol, and finances. These broad categories pave the way for widespread content moderation.

In an opposition letter to the House of Representatives, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) outlined its First Amendment concern with the legislation. "In response to KOSA's requirement that platforms establish 'reasonable policies' to address harms…platforms are likely to remove information that they think could cause those harms."

While platforms "may intentionally over-censor to avoid liability, the problem will be compounded by imprecise content moderation methods," the ACLU added. For example, a platform's "content moderation algorithm may inadvertently remove information about addiction recovery, because it contains similar keywords as content that could cause kids to buy or drink alcohol."

The "duty of care" provision is a red line for the Senate sponsors, Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.) and Marsha Blackburn (R–Tenn.). In a June statement, the two scolded the House for removing the provision from their version of the legislation, arguing that it "is a pale imitation of Big Tech accountability." They also refused to remove this provision from the Senate version: "We will not back down from the fight to pass the stronger, more widely supported version of the Kids Online Safety Act, and we will not greenlight hollow reforms that allow Big Tech's predatory business model to remain intact."

Free speech concerns aside, there seems to be widespread political consensus that social media is harmful to children, and that regulation must be the answer. The evidence is not so clean-cut. A 2022 umbrella review of 25 studies on adolescent mental health showed that "most reviews interpreted the associations between social media use and mental health as 'weak' or 'inconsistent.'" A 2023 longitudinal study of 10- to 15-year-olds in the U.K. found "little evidence" that spending more time on social media predicted later mental health problems among adolescents once other factors were taken into account.

The benefits of social media rarely get a fair hearing either. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis found that online social support "may be associated with increased self-identity and life satisfaction, decreased loneliness and social anxiety," and that "it also counteracts the negative effect of stress and cyberbullying on mental health." For LGBTQ youth, social media is particularly important: A 2022 systematic review found that social media "may support the mental health and well-being of LGBTQ youths through peer connection, identity management, and social support." Additionally, as Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown reported, a 2026 JAMA Pediatrics study of fourth- through 12th-graders found that moderate use of online platforms was "associated with the best well-being outcomes," better than children who abstain from social media entirely.

With the evidence around social media so mixed, Paul is right that parents, rather than federal regulators, are better placed to decide what is appropriate for their children. And giving platforms a legal duty to prevent broadly defined harms risks suppressing lawful—and potentially beneficial—speech in the process.