On Wednesday, August 6th, 2026, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee voted on five bills focused on online safety and artificial intelligence. 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, sponsored by Senator Mike Lee (R–Utah), seeks 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 goal. However, the bill requires companies to verify IP addresses in addition to simple age attestation, such as entering a birthdate. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) cautions that these verification requirements would "force millions of adult internet users to give up their anonymity, privacy, and security before they access lawful speech." Despite privacy 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 safeguards to protect users under 17. Additionally, the committee advanced a bill requiring users under 18 to obtain parental consent before using chatbots, alongside another bill imposing critical privacy safeguards on AI chatbots.

Representative Ruben Gallego (D–Ariz.) introduced the Parental Approval for Youth Social Media Act, which would require social media platforms to obtain parental consent for children creating or maintaining accounts. The bill also mandates platforms 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 proposal.

Free speech advocates argue these bills impose duties on platforms to shield listeners from subjective reactions to constitutionally protected speech, a standard courts have historically rejected on First Amendment grounds. The debate highlights ongoing tensions between protecting minors online and preserving internet freedoms.

Sources