•  
  •  
 

Publication Date

5-7-2026

Document Type

Comment

Abstract

“A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more.” This oft-quoted maxim from Packingham v. North Carolina has become a touchstone for the wave of litigation challenging state laws that restrict minors’ access to social media platforms. But, in the rapidly advancing age of social media, should the principle still stand that all persons, specifically minors, are entitled to unfettered access to such novel spaces where they can speak and listen? Underpinning the discussion of this issue lies “a conflict between one of society’s most cherished rights—freedom of expression— and one of government’s most profound obligations—the protection of minors.”

To describe social media as merely posing a danger to children would substantially understate the breadth of its impact. Like other technologies advancing at exponential speed, social media has outpaced society’s ability to fully understand its ramifications. At this very moment, the extent of social media’s harms to minors remains only partially known. While the uncertainty surrounding social media’s long-term impact on minors should be troubling enough on its own, emerging research consistently points toward serious and multifaceted risks. One study concluded that adolescents aged twelve to fifteen, who spent more than three hours a day on social media, had twice the risk of experiencing depression and anxiety. This conclusion is particularly disturbing in light of another study, which found that American teenagers spend an average of three and a half hours a day on social media. Neuroscientific studies show that frequent use during adolescence—a period of heightened brain plasticity—is associated with distinct changes in the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, regions critical for emotion and impulse regulation. Features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and push notifications are engineered to maximize engagement, and studies suggest nearly one-third of adolescent social media use is attributable to such self-control challenges. Certain neuroimaging studies even show brain structure changes in adolescents akin to substance or gambling addictions, underscoring why over half of teens report it would be “hard to give up” social media altogether. For some, the issues represented by these studies can easily be swept aside as mere numbers on a page, but they unquestionably reflect one of the most pressing public health issues of our time. To treat these issues as inconsequential would be to ignore an exploding crisis in adolescent well-being, and such a crisis thus raises the question: Should the First Amendment shield unrestricted access to platforms that may be harming children at an unprecedented scale?

Confronted with mounting evidence of social media’s harms to minors, legislatures across the United States have moved to address the crisis. Yet the effort to protect children while respecting constitutional limits on speech has produced a wave of litigation, suggesting that lawmakers have often failed to strike the delicate balance between safeguarding youth and preserving free expression.

Overall, this Comment seeks to highlight a particular concern of overwhelming importance: the possibility that current judicial approaches to these cases inadequately account for the unique risks social media poses to minors. It will proceed in three parts. Part I surveys the development of the law surrounding minors’ rights to expression and their access to expression, situating the nationwide wave of challenges to laws regulating minors’ access to social media within that broader landscape. Part II examines the ongoing litigation in NetChoice v. Carr, which challenges the Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act of 2024, as well as its relationship to similar litigation, to illustrate the stakes and doctrinal flashpoints in detail. Part III analyzes the recurring constitutional issues that have emerged across these cases, particularly First Amendment protections for minors and the fundamental right to parenthood, while considering whether existing doctrinal applications are ill-suited to the novel risks posed by social media.

Download

Share

COinS