Session: 2023-2024
ACLU-PA Position: Opposes
HB 2017 (PN 3072) would amend Title 50 (Mental Health) to add new requirements for social media platforms accessible to minors. The bill would:
- Require social media platforms to verify the age of all users.
- Require a minor under 16 years old to have the express consent of a parent or legal guardian to open an account. The Attorney General can enforce this provision via civil penalties.
- Allow a parent or legal guardian the ability to view the privacy settings of their minor’s account.
- Prohibit social media platforms from collecting certain data from a minor user. The Attorney General can enforce this provision via civil penalties.
- Require social media platforms to post a “Hateful Conduct Prohibited” policy explaining how the platform will respond to online speech that could “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence” against a protected class; create a mechanism for visitors to submit complaints about “hateful” content; and mandate that platforms respond directly to complaints. The Attorney General can enforce this provision via investigations, subpoenas, and daily fines of $1,000 per violation.
Legislators amended the previous version of the bill, HB 2017 PN 2746 (which the ACLU-PA also opposed), and made significant improvements to the bill by striking some of its most intrusive and unconstitutional provisions. Unfortunately, PN 3072 replaces one unconstitutional provision with another—a provision titled “Hateful Conduct Prohibited." The "Hateful Conduct" section is unconstitutional for the following reasons:
- HB 2017 would violate social media platforms’ First Amendment right to editorial judgment and the right to publish protected expression, including offensive or unpopular speech.
- HB 2017 would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it constitutes a content-based and viewpoint-based regulation of speech.
- HB 2017 would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it compels speech, requiring platforms to endorse the state’s message and respond to reports of state-defined hate speech.
- HB 2017 would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it is overbroad, as it targets a wide-range of protected expression.
- HB 2017 would be unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments for being impermissibly vague because its operative terms are unclear and undefined.
Check the bill's status here.
