Discussion · Senate
Rand Paul Republican
“I object to passing this bill. It will lead to censorship and violate free speech, including pro-life messages. Parents, not government rules, should protect children online.”
“Reserving right to object, if good intentions created laws--or created good laws--there would be no need for congressional debate. I have no doubt that the authors of this bill genuinely want to protect children, but the bill they have written promises to be a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. KOSA would impose an unprecedented duty of care on internet platform to mitigate certain harms associated with mental health, such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders. While proponents can claim that the bill is not designed to regulate content, imposing a duty of care will inevitably lead to one outcome: the stifling of First Amendment protected speech. Although many organizations have expressed concerns relating to KOSA’s effective censorship mandate, I want to discuss one group in particular. During the 2024 effort to pass KOSA, a pro-life organization, Students for Life Action, stated: Students for Life Action concluded its statement by stating: If KOSA can silence pro-life speech because online messages encouraging adoption and discouraging abortion might cause a teen mom anxiety, then KOSA is the kind of censorship all those who believe in the sanctity of life should oppose. KOSA should not pass the Senate. But it certainly should not pass the Senate today, the 50th anniversary of the Hyde amendment, which bans Federal taxpayer funds from being used for abortion. No matter how many times the bill text is altered, no matter how many times KOSA’s authors try to disguise its censorship, the reality remains that this legislation will silence constitutionally protected speech. Government mandates and censorship will not protect children online. The internet may pose new problems. But there is an age-old solution to this issue. Free minds and parental guidance are the best means to protect our children online. I object.”
-
Speech in the House
Reasoning 17 of 100
This statement drew 6 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 5 of them.
See full analysis
Reserving right to object, if good intentions created laws--or created good laws--there would be no need for congressional debate. I have no doubt that the authors of this bill genuinely want to protect children, but the bill they have written promises to be a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. KOSA would impose an unprecedented duty of care on internet platform to mitigate certain harms associated with mental health, such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders. While proponents can claim that the bill is not designed to regulate content, imposing a duty of care will inevitably lead to one outcome: the stifling of First Amendment protected speech. Although many organizations have expressed concerns relating to KOSA’s effective censorship mandate, I want to discuss one group in particular. During the 2024 effort to pass KOSA, a pro-life organization, Students for Life Action, stated: Students for Life Action concluded its statement by stating: If KOSA can silence pro-life speech because online messages encouraging adoption and discouraging abortion might cause a teen mom anxiety, then KOSA is the kind of censorship all those who believe in the sanctity of life should oppose. KOSA should not pass the Senate. But it certainly should not pass the Senate today, the 50th anniversary of the Hyde amendment, which bans Federal taxpayer funds from being used for abortion. No matter how many times the bill text is altered, no matter how many times KOSA’s authors try to disguise its censorship, the reality remains that this legislation will silence constitutionally protected speech. Government mandates and censorship will not protect children online. The internet may pose new problems. But there is an age-old solution to this issue. Free minds and parental guidance are the best means to protect our children online. I object.