COMMENTARY: Why blanket social media bans fail the free expression test

COMMENTARY: Why blanket social media bans fail the free expression test By Stuart N. Brotman InsideSources.com September 11, 2026 - 12:48 am In the effort to shield children from the harms of social media, American legislators have found an unlikely ally in France’s Constitutional Council. The nation’s highest legal authority recently invalidated a sweeping measure that would have barred minors under 15 from accessing social platforms. The council’s ruling was decisive, declaring that the law’s broad approach fundamentally violated rights to free expression and privacy. For lawmakers in Florida, Arkansas, and Utah—where federal courts have spent the past year blocking similar age‑based bans—the decision from Paris should serve as a flashing red light. When both the First Amendment and the French Constitution agree that a digital dragnet goes too far, it is time to reconsider the strategy. Throughout my career I have watched the regulatory pendulum swing wildly. Today, free expression faces unprecedented pressure. The French Constitutional Council recognized this danger, ruling that an indiscriminate prohibition on social media access is not an “appropriate, indispensable and proportionate” method for protecting children. You simply cannot mandate a blackout on digital connection platforms without severely infringing on fundamental expressive rights. In the United States, federal courts echo this sentiment. When a federal judge permanently blocked Arkansas’ Act 689 in NetChoice v. Griffin—a law requiring age verification and parental consent for minors—the court noted that the state “takes a hatchet to adults’ and minors’ protected code alike, though the Constitution demands it use a scalpel.” Indeed, banning access to lawful speech based on age is a blunt instrument that fails judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, the French decision sharply criticized the measure for giving parents zero discretion to authorize their children’s use of specific platforms. This gets to the heart of a profound contradiction in the American legislative push. Lawmakers in Florida, where a federal judge halted an attempt to ban accounts for kids under 14, often frame these bills as championing parental rights. Yet in practice, broad bans strip parents of their agency. A 14‑year‑old seeking an online support group for a rare medical condition, or a budding entrepreneur launching a digital business, is treated the same as a 10‑year‑old mindlessly scrolling algorithmic feeds. The state decides what is best, and parents are legally barred from making nuanced decisions tailored to their families. Federal courts have rightly reminded states that parents, not government officials, are best positioned to navigate how their kids use technology. Perhaps the most operationally damaging point the French tribunal made concerns enforcement mechanics. The council observed that to successfully block users under 15, platforms must logically verify the age of every single user, without exception. Because the law failed to provide safeguards for how it would collect and manage proof of age, it violated the right to privacy. This same age‑verification trap is stalling efforts across America. Mandating that users upload a driver’s license or passport to a biometric facial scan forces adults to surrender highly sensitive identifying information to tech companies. It creates massive digital honeypots, leaving every network user vulnerable to hackers and data brokers. Ironically, lawmakers who have spent years warning the public about Big Tech’s data‑mining practices are now passing laws that compel citizens to hand those same companies their government‑issued IDs. The impulse to protect young people in an increasingly complex media ecosystem is undeniably noble. We need real solutions that address algorithmic harms without burning down the village. Using a sledgehammer to strip citizens of their digital rights is simply a cure worse than the disease. We cannot uphold free expression across the political spectrum if our default regulatory posture defaults to censorship and surveillance. When the French Constitutional Council and American federal judges reach the same conclusion about the dangers of state‑mandated social media bans, it is a rare moment of global legal harmony. Lawmakers should listen. Instead of unconstitutional bans and invasive age‑verification mandates, they should focus on comprehensive data‑privacy laws, greater algorithmic transparency, and empowering parents with better tools. The digital public square belongs to everyone, and safeguarding our children within it must never come at the expense of our foundational democratic liberties. Stuart N. Brotman is the digital media laureate and distinguished senior fellow at The Media Institute. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.