It begins with "warning labels"

I carry no brief for Big Tech overlords. A sound case can be made that internet behemoths like Google and Facebook agitate to interfere with our electoral process, on behalf of Democrats.

Today, though, another matter demands attention:

42 states' Attorneys General are calling for governmental social- media clampdown. They caution of a legitimate problem: Young internet users' emotional well-being is endangered. But the cure they prescribe is a dangerous one.

The impetus for their present aggression was a June New York Times op-ed penned by US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.

He advocated warning labels be forced onto social-media sites, much as cigarette manufacturers are legally required to put ones on their products.

But words aren't carcinogens. They don't compromise physical health.

"One of the most important lessons I learned in medical school was that in an emergency, you don't have the luxury to wait for perfect information," Murthy wrote. "You assess the available facts, you use your best judgment, and you act quickly."

His comparison is nonsensical. The impact of ideas merely held cannot be physically gauged like proveable health risks associated with tobacco use, food products, or medicines. 

In those instances, regulation is in keeping with the Constitution's mandate that democratically elected government safeguard public welfare.

Ideas themselves don't invariably lead to physical harm. One listener may accept a thought, but another reject it.

Murthy's advocacy of rash action undertaken on what he concedes to be imperfect data is unwise, at best. 

In their Sept. 9, 2024 letter -- sent to House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- the signatories implored officials to accept Murthy's warning labels proposal.

The states' attorneys general wrote that warning labels posted on social-media pages would not, alone, be "sufficient to address the full scope of the problem" and would be only "one consequential step toward mitigating the risk of harm to youth."

They continued: "A warning would not only highlight the inherent risks that social-media platforms presently pose for young people, but also complement other efforts to spur attention, research, and investment into the oversight of social-media platforms."

"Other efforts?"

Those words suggest further governmental action imperiling citizen speech. Perhaps warning labels on social-media sites represent only a beginning. 

Should government legally codify the notion that words are health matters properly open to regulation, Americans' speech liberty would be only a memory.

The World Health Organizaton and National Institutes of Health have declared odious racist beliefs to be as dangerous to physical health as toxic chemicals. 

Of course racist beliefs are illogical and immoral. But there is only one First Amendment. And it protects speech equally. If bad ideas are stifled, good ones are necessarily at risk.

Today, some have perverted the meaning of "racism" to encompass legitimate values like maintaining cultural integrity and even the concept of legal citizenship.

Pressure to outlaw such expression has already resulted in related codes and statutes.

Should warning labels be strong-armed onto sites, speakers would eventually refrain from articulating controversial notions at all, fearing potential punitive actions.

Free conversation in the public square would then be a casualty.