South Carolina bill regulating social media use for minors sparks debate over balancing online safety and parental rights

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCBD) — A bill aimed at protecting children from potentially harmful content online passed the South Carolina House on Wednesday despite objections from some who argued it infringes on parents’ rights.  

The bill requires social media companies to make “reasonable efforts” to verify the age of users on their platform and prohibits children under the age of 18 from creating accounts without a parent’s permission.

It would also restrict targeted advertising on minors’ social media feeds and block adults from communicating with children they aren’t already connected with.

Rep. Travis Moore (R-Spartanburg) said the bill would create a similar safety standard for tech companies as the state has for physical products like car seats, cribs, and children’s toys.  

“These platforms, like physical products, must now be designed with a duty of care to protect children,” he said.

But, Minority leader Rep. Todd Rutherford (D-Richland) said parents should and already can regulate their child’s social media use and questioned why the government needed to step in at all.

“Why does the government need to do what parents can already do given the evils of social media?” Rutherford asked. “We’ll agree they’re evil, but if they’re evil and you’re a parent, why don’t you do it and why do you need the government to do it for you?

“This issue is so pervasive, so widespread that these are not issues parents can individually handle, in my opinion,” Moore responded, asserting it fits into the core government function of maintaining public safety.  

Rep. Justin Bamberg (D-Bamberg) — the sole lawmaker to vote against a nearly identical bill last session – argued that while the bill has good intentions, it is not the government’s responsibility to “raise people’s kids.”

“I do understand that the ambitions behind this [are] admirable…but this is not the way to do it,” he said.

“It’s not the state of South Carolina’s job to raise people’s kids,” Bamberg continued. “The state can assist a parent, but the state should not be making all of the decisions for kids and taking that away from parents.”

He suggested the legislation could have unintended consequences, including for adults wanting to join new platforms because all users — regardless of age — would have to go through the same verification process to create an account.

How to best balance the need to protect children from dangerous online content with parental rights and privacy has been a focal point as lawmakers nationwide consider bills restricting minors’ access to social media amid safety concerns.

Bamberg offered an amendment to South Carolina’s that he said would balance those concerns by requiring companies to develop age-appropriate versions of their platforms, such as YouTube Kids.

His amendment was tabled, or effectively killed, in a 72-30 vote.

The debate, which grew contentious at times, also focused on a section of the bill Rep. April Cromer (R-Anderson) described as one of its “red flags.”

It would direct the state Department of Education to develop model programming by next March to educate children in sixth through 12th grade on the potential dangers associated with using social media. Some of the material could be suggested by educational experts, psychologists, and tech companies themselves.

“Does that mean we’re asking Facebook, X, and all of them to help give us guidelines to help protect the kids at the same time?” Cromer said, adding that she too felt the legislation encroached on parental rights.

Rep. Jordan Pace (R-Berkeley), who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, also expressed concern over the price tag. The curriculum would cost approximately $750,000 to develop initially with recurring costs upwards of $500,000 per year, according to estimates from the SC Dept. of Education.

Proponents of the curriculum said it is critical for students, especially teenagers, to have a “basic, level understanding” of the risks on these platforms.  

“Our young people are being exposed to things that many of us would never understand,” said Rep. Brandon Newton (R-Lancaster).

Moore further accused Pace of mischaracterizing the section’s language and intent by saying it would mandate public schools to implement the curriculum.

“Do our schools have to do that? No,” he said.

The same language, he said, was included in last year’s bill to address concerns raised during the committee process about media literacy.

“It was included in the bill to address the concerns of people who now want to pretend they have an issue,” Moore said. “Nothing has changed in this language. It did not fly in under anybody’s radar. It was the product of debate, compromise, and we all approved it.”  

The exchanges over Pace’s amendment – which was ultimately tabled – offered the latest glimpse into the ongoing tension between hardline Freedom Caucus members and mainstream Republicans, who suggest their more conservative counterparts are more interested in scoring social media points than governing.  

After several hours of debate, the bill passed by a 90-17 vote.

It now heads to the Senate where its fate is uncertain.