The challenge to balance free speech with the effects those words have on others has been a struggle since the very inception of American democracy. Few amendments are debated, and protected, as much as the First Amendment. The ability to speak our minds in an unfettered manner has been repeatedly defended time and time again by the U.S. Supreme Court. After all, the very nature of the amendment is designed to protect speech we don’t like. And, yes, that includes messages that can be seen as hateful.
But most of those decisions were made before the Internet Age and the world of social media. Now we have technology that allows people and certain special interest groups to use social media platforms to craft messages that specifically target and possibly shape young, impressionable minds. This has led to new challenges; specifically, should social media giants like Meta and Google be responsible for the content others place on their platforms, even if it’s seen by some as harmful? Courts have ruled in favor of protecting Meta and others from that
responsibility – until now.
Previously, social media companies have been protected by Section 230, a provision added to the Communications Act of 1934 that says internet companies aren’t liable for content users’ posts. However, in a recent landmark ruling by the California Superior Court, a jury found Meta and YouTube liable on all counts in a case accusing the tech giants of intentionally addicting a young (minor) woman to harmful content and thereby affecting her mental health. This trial was the culmination of years of accusations by parents, teachers, and some mental health
professionals that Meta, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok were also sued but settled
out of court) were negligent in their design; knew it was dangerous; failed to warn of those risks; and caused substantial damage, particularly to young people. Ruling in favor of the plaintiff seemed to validate those claims.
The case revolved around a woman from California named Haley, who is now 20. She and her mother sued Meta and the others claiming that their platforms contained content that purposely addicted Haley to body-shaming- style posts, causing her to have a host of mental health issues. After a seven-week trial in Los Angeles, the jury deliberated for more than eight days before ruling against Meta and YouTube and awarding the plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages and over $1 million in punitive damages. Of course, this clears the way for hundreds, if not thousands, of other pending lawsuits, opening the door for the potential of awarding billions of dollars more.
Matt Bergman, founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center, which is representing hundreds of plaintiffs in state and federal proceedings, told reporters earlier this week that when his firm began suing social media companies four years ago, nobody thought the cases would reach trial. “But win or lose the outcome of this trial, victims in the United States have won because we now know that social media companies can and will be held accountable before a fair and impartial jury,” Bergman notes, adding: “And in some cases, plaintiffs will prevail, and in some they may not, but we are just gratified for the opportunity to get this far, and there will be many more trials in the future.”
Dr. Lizzette Ruiz-Giovannazzi, superintendent of the Nyack School District, takes a holistic approach to the judgment: “This ruling reinforces the importance of including Social Emotional Learning (SEL), digital citizenship education, mental health support for our babies, our Family Resource Centers, and Alternative Learning Systems (ALS) collaborations with our parents in the school district. We center safety in all these spaces and are also finding new ways that we hope encourage parents to continue to be proactively connected to their child’s education, like
with our Parent University. We know that cultivating a sense of belonging in our schools makes all the difference.”
Going forward, the prospect of losing so much money will have a chilling effect on these platforms, particularly with censorship, i.e. who will be the arbiter of what is harmful and what is not? What if something is banned simply because it may be an unpopular opinion? And where does the ultimate responsibility lie for social media consumption, especially when it involves young minds? Should we limit potential exposure for all, arbitrated by an algorithm or AI? Or should families and consulting adults take their share of the responsibility?
In response to the verdict, Meta said: “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app. We will continue to defend ourselves as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.”
Professor Paul Levinson, a widely acknowledged media expert from Fordham University, tends to see the decision as severe over-reach by the courts: “I think the decision is a very dangerous attack on the First Amendment and for social media across the board. Social media is not addictive, it’s habit forming, like coffee or tea. Unless the social media app is turning a blind eye to people dealing drugs on their system – which is a crime – there’s no evidence that the use of social media causes any more damage to kids than what happens to them with their friends
offline.” Instead of looking to shoot the messenger, this statement by Dr. Levinson challenges parents and other responsible adults to shoulder their share of the responsibility in the content their children consume. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Dr. Ruiz-Giovannazzi’s methods make the most sense to me. Yes, there is ample evidence that these giant media companies make their decisions based on the health of their bank accounts and not on that of their users. At least they certainly take a blind-eye approach when it comes to much of their content. However, we know that, or at least, we should. It’s part of the new reality of a connected world. Holding anyone else accountable for what we consume seems ironic to me. Instead, we should be more involved in teaching our children this very thing. In our
efforts to rightfully protect the innocent, we need the right approach. Painting with such a broad brush seldom produces good results. The fallout from this decision, no matter how well-meant, may have unintended consequences. This has always been the challenge of America: the need for individual safety in balance with society’s need for freedom.
Frank LoBuono is a Nyack resident, photographer, blogger and retired CBS News journalist.
Editor’s note: The views expressed in this article are those of this independent writer and not the Nyack News & Views editorial staff. We welcome submissions from anybody who is interested in publishing their thoughts, ideas and perspectives about issues facing our community, both large and small. Please send submissions to info@nyacknewsandviews.com.
Photo credit: George Pejoves
