On Wednesday, August 6th, 2026, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee voted on five bills focused on online safety and artificial intelligence (AI). Among these were the Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). Both have drawn criticism from free speech advocates who warn they could undermine online privacy and freedom.

The SCREEN Act, introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R–Utah), aims to block minors from accessing pornography websites through stringent age verification measures. The bill asserts that "shielding minors from access to online pornographic content is a compelling government interest" and claims its provisions are the "least restrictive means for Congress" to achieve this. However, simple age attestation, such as entering a birthday, is deemed insufficient; companies would also need to verify IP addresses. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) cautions that such requirements could "force millions of adult internet users to give up their anonymity, privacy, and security before they access lawful speech." Despite these concerns, the SCREEN Act received majority support in the committee but did not advance due to lack of quorum.

KOSA, under consideration by Congress since 2022, mandates that "covered online platforms" like social media and video streaming services implement tools and safeguards to protect users under 17. The committee also advanced bills requiring users under 18 to obtain parental consent before using chatbots and compelling AI companies to adopt critical privacy safeguards for chatbots.

Additionally, Representative Ruben Gallego (D–Ariz.) introduced the Parental Approval for Youth Social Media Act. This legislation would require social media platforms to obtain parental consent for children creating or maintaining accounts and to verify users' ages and parental authorization before allowing minors access. Gallego cited France's ban on social media use for children under 15 as inspiration for the bill.

Free speech advocates argue these measures impose what courts have historically rejected on First Amendment grounds: a duty to protect listeners from subjective and unknowable reactions to constitutionally protected speech. The bills collectively reflect a bipartisan effort to enhance online safety but raise significant debates about privacy and freedom on the internet.

Sources