>>> SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT REGULATE SOCIAL MEDIA?

♪♪ >>> WELCOME TO "COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD."

THIS WEEK WE TAKE A STEP BACK AND LOOK AT ONE TOPIC THAT IS VERY MUCH IN THE NEWS.

BECAUSE OF THE UBIQUITOUS NATURE OF WHAT IS ON SMARTPHONES AND THE HARM THEY COULD CAUSE, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE TAKING STEPS TO CLAMP DOWN ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

OF COURSE, THAT BUMPS INTO THE PRINCIPLE THAT GOVERNMENTS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF OR OF THE PRESS.

THE U.S.

SURGEON GENERAL HAS WARNED THAT SOCIAL MEDIA IS HARMFUL TO YOUNG PEOPLE AND DISINFORMATION SPREADS WILDLY ON X, FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM AND TIKTOK.

AND THEN IF YOU ADD IN AI AND DEEP FAKES YOU COULD SEE THE PROBLEM THAT HAS NO EASY SOLUTION.

RECENTLY WE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AS PART OF DIALOGUE SERIES PRESENTED BY WOSU PUBLIC MEDIA.

OUR PANEL OF EXPERTS INCLUDING NICOLE KRAFT, A JOURNALIST AND OSSA COMMUNICATION PROFESSOR, DAVID STEBENNE, LAW AND HISTORY PROFESSOR AT OSU AND CHRIS VINEIS, FOUNDER OF THE GROUP UNITE FOR SAFE SOCIAL MEDIA.

HERE IS OUR DISCUSSION.

>> I'M GOING TO START WITH A BIBLE READING.

BUT YOU DIDN'T FIGURE THAT WHEN YOU GOT HERE TODAY.

HERE IT IS.

MY SON, BEWARE OF ANYTHING BEYOND THESE.

OF MAKING MANY BOOKS, THERE IS NO END.

AND MUCH STUDY IS A WEARINESS OF THE FLESH.

THIS IS ECCLESIASTES CHAPTER 12 VERSE 12, THAT THE MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY AND SPREADING OF INFORMATION GOES BACK TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.

AND THAT IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

THE PRINTING PRESS HAD ITS CRITICS, IT WOULD SPREAD LIES AND IT DID.

AND RADIO CAME ALONG, YOU DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO READ.

AND THAT WAS BEFORE CABLE.

THEN, THE INTERNET.

AND INFORMATION IS LIKE WATER WITH THE INTERNET.

IT -- IT FLOWS EVERYWHERE AND OFTEN FINDS THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE AND TO ANOTHER BIBLICAL MEDICAL, SOCIAL MEDIA IS LIKE THE GREAT FLOOD.

AND THAT IS THE AGE WE FIND OURSELVES IN HERE NOW.

SO WEARINESS OF THE FLESH IS NOW WHAT WE CALL DOOM SCROLLING.

THIS IS NOTHING NEW.

BUT IT SEEMS DIFFERENT.

I MEAN, IT IS EVERYWHERE NOW.

IT IS A GREAT TIME TO BE ALIVE AND HAVE ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION BUT IT COULD BE MISUSED AND HARMFUL THINGS COULD COME ABOUT BECAUSE OF IT.

THERE IS DISINFORMATION, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, DATA MINING BY DOMESTIC COMPANIES AND FOREIGN ENTITIES, HARMFUL INFLUENCES WHO ARE PERFECT BUT FACE IT, AT EVERYTHING.

THE STANDARD IS VERY HIGH FOR FOLKS THAT ARE SEEING THEM.

AND THEN THERE IS BULLYING, ONLINE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT.

ALL OF THE FACTORS HAVE LED MANY TO CONSIDER REGULATION, POLICING THE INTERNET.

WHICH GOES AGAINST ONE OF OUR KEY AMERICAN TENANTS AND THAT IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

SO WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT DOES BUSINESS DO OR THE GOVERNMENT DO AND SO PROFESSOR, STEBENNE, WE'LL START WITH THE HISTORY PROFESSOR.

IS THIS AGE DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER ONES I DESCRIBED?

>> WELL THE INTERNET IS DIFFERENT.

BUT EACH NEW ADVANCE AND IN MEDIA TECHNOLOGY, CREATES NEW ISSUES BUT THEY'RE ALSO TIMELESS ONES.

WHAT IS DRIVING THIS CURRENT CONCERN IS THE SURGEON GENERAL'S FINDING THAT SOCIAL MEDIA IS ACTUALLY HARMING ADOLESCENTS AND IT IS A MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN.

SO AS A HISTORIAN, MY SORT OF FEELING IS THAT, THAT SURGEON GENERAL FINDING MAY BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WE HAVE IN 1964 WITH RELATION TO CIGARETTES.

ONCE THAT CAME OUT, FOLKS GOT BUSY FINDING WAYS TO DEAL WITH THAT PROBLEM.

ONE WAY, ALMOST IMMEDIATELY WAS TO BAN ADVERTISING.

ANOTHER WAS TO HAVE PUBLIC EDUCATION STANDPOINTS IN THE SCHOOLS FROM THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE SCHOOL.

THE TIME TO ENTER PUBLIC SCHOOL WAS THE MID 1960s BUT IF YOU DID THEN, YOU GOT A CLEAR CONSISTENT ANTI-SMOKING MESSAGE ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

AND THEN OF COURSE THERE WERE LAWSUITS EVENTUALLY.

AND FLAT OUT BANS BY VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.

SO IT IS AN ONGOING THING.

AND I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THE SURGEON GENERAL'S FINDING WITH RESPECT TO THE FINDING IS ABOUT A YEAR OLD NOW AND SO WE'RE AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT CYCLE.

THE EFFORTS TO FIND WAYS THAT ARE LAWFUL AND EFFECTIVE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM.

>> THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT CIGARETTES.

NICOLE?

>> IT DOES NOT.

>> IT DOES PROTECT ADVERTISING.

>> IT DOES PROTECT ADVERTISING.

SO THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS OUT OF THE DAY.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE AR-15s.

IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT OUT OF DATE?

>> NO, I DON'T THINK IT HAS EVER BEEN MORE IMPORTANT.

AND I THINK WE LOOK AT SOCIAL MEDIA AS THIS THING THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO US, BUT IN FACT WE HAVE BEEN WILLING PARTICIPANTS IN IT.

YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO BE PART OF SOCIAL MEDIA.

YOU OPT INTO IT.

YOU GIVE UP YOUR PRIVACY AND YOU MAKE THAT DECISION AND THAT CHOICE.

SO THIS IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO START CENSORING PEOPLE IN THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA, WE HAD COURT CASES THAT HAVE COME UP THAT HAVE EXPRESSED CENSORSHIP FOR SOCIAL MEDIA AND HAVE TRIED TO SHAPE IT IN SOME WAY BUT THERE IS ALSO IN TERMS OF REGULATING THE INTERNET, LAST BIG PUSH WAS IN 1986 AND IT DIDN'T GO VERY FAR.

SO IT WAS DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT THAT TIME.

AND THAT IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN WHENEVER WE TALK ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND IN ITS DEFENSE, THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE FIRST.

IT WAS ACTUALLY THE THIRD AMENDMENT AND THE OTHER TWO DIDN'T GET ENOUGH SUPPORT SO SUDDENLY WE'RE IN THE SPOTLIGHT THAT IT IS THE FIRST ONE AND THESE INCREDIBLE RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE AND THERE IS A KIND OF HODGEPODGE OF THE FIVE OF THEM SMUSHED TOGETHER.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT FREE SPEECH, AND YOU LOOK AT FREE PRESS, BOTH OF WHICH ARE ACROSS ROADS WHICH IT COMES TO SOCIAL MEDIA, YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WOULD IS GOING TO LIMIT THE FREEDOM AND I'M NOT SURE THAT I FOUND THE ENTITY WERE THE PERSON THAT I WOULD BE LIKE TO LIMIT MY FREEDOM.

>> YOUR GROUP IS UNITE FOR SAFE SOCIAL MEDIA.

WHAT IS A SAFE SOCIAL MEDIA?

>> SAFE SOCIAL MEDIA IS A HEALTHY BALANCE OF TEENS AND ADOLESCENTS USING SOCIAL MEDIA FOR ITS BENEFITS.

MAXIMIZING ITS BENEFITS, BUT MINIMIZING ITS HARM TO HOPEFULLY DECREASE THE HUGE RATE OF MENTAL HEALTH ILLNESS AMONG THESE KIDS TO, TO DECREASE SUICIDE AND DEPRESSION AND SEUSSAL RATES.

WE WANT TO CHANGE ALL OF THAT AND THEY I THERE WITH WAY WITHIN THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

>> HOW DO YOU BALANCE THE FREE SPEECH AND THE RIGHT TO SAY THINGS THAT ARE FRANKLY HATEFUL THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS BUT ALSO DO WHAT YOU TRY TO DO.

>> YOU GOT IT NOT FROM A FREE SPEECH POINT OF VIEW BUT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS DRIVING THESE YOUNG ADOLESCENT BRAINS WHO ARE NOT EQUIPPED, NICOLE, I WOULD SUGGEST FOR THE BOMBARDING OF THESE ADDICTIVE FEATURES AND YOU COME AT IT FROM AN OPERATIONAL POINT OF VIEW.

AND YOU -- YOU TALK ABOUT THE DESIGN IN THESE PLATFORMS.

VIRGINIA AND MASSACHUSETTS AND VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND HAVE JUST PASSED A BILL LIKE THAT.

WHICH PROTECTED MINORS, PROVIDES FOR NEW DESIGN OF PLATFORMS, BUT DOES NOT EVEN GET INTO THE FREE SPEECH.

IT IS ALL ABOUT HOW THE OPERATIONS OF THESE PLATFORMS WORK.

AND SO FAR IT SEEMS TO BE MAKING A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.

>> SO FOR THOSE OF US THAT AREN'T FAMILIAR, OHIO HAS A LAW ON HOLD BECAUSE OF A JUDGE'S RULING THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO GET PARENTAL PERMISSION BEFORE YOUNG PEOPLE YOUNGER THAN 16 COULD GO ON THEIR PLATFORMS.

THAT IS ON HOLD NOW BECAUSE OF A JUDGE'S RULING.

IS MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA DIFFERENT?

>> RIGHT.

THEY'RE NOT EVEN ADDRESSING THE PARENTAL NOTIFICATION.

THAT I THINK IS A NONSTARTER.

THEY'RE AGAIN TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU'RE KEEPING KIDS DATA PRIVATE AND PROTECTING KIDS FROM UNTOWARD ADVANCES AND NOT EVENT ADDRESSING PARENTAL NOTIFICATION.

TENNESSEE JUST PASSED PARENTAL NOTIFICATION LAST WEEK.

THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE SUED.

>> DAVID, DOES THE CURRENT LAW -- YOU CAN'T STALK PEOPLE ONLINE AND PANDER SEXUAL MATERIAL OF YOUNG PEOPLE ONLINE.

WITH CURRENT LAW.

WITHOUT NEW LAWS?

>> RIGHT.

AND THE WHOLE DEBATE ABOUT LAW RESOFS AROUND THE INTERNET BECAUSE IT IS SO KNEW.

PATTERN HAS BEEN DIFFERENT FORM OF MASS MEDIA GET DIFFERENT LEVELS OF NEGOTIATION.

IN THE MID 1990s, IN THE 1997 TO BE PRECISE, THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THIS EFFORT TO REGULATE CONTENT ON THE INTERNET AND THE KEY INTELLECTUAL MOVE IN SOME WAYS IN THE JUSTICE STEVENS OPINION WAS THAT BROADCAST IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF ITS INVASIVE NATURE.

IT SENDS SIGNALS AT YOU.

NOW, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TIKTOK, SENDING YOU ALL SORTS OF VIDEOS THAT YOU DON'T REALLY WANT AND AREN'T GOOD FOR YOU, IN OTHER WORDS, THE INTERNET CONTINUES TO EVOLVE AND YOU COULD MAKE A GOOD LEGAL ARGUMENT TODAY THAT IN THE CASE OF TIKTOK, IT IS BECOME MORE LIKE BROADCAST.

IN OTHER WORDS, YES, YOU HAVE TO SIGN ON BUT THEN YOUR BOMBARDED WITH ALL OF THIS STUFF.

IF THAT IS THE CASE, THAT OPENS THE DOOR TO A SUPREME COURT RULING SAYING GIVEN WHAT THE INTERNET HAS BECOME, SOME FORMS OF SOCIAL MEDIA, IT OUGHT TO BE REGULATED IN THE WAY THAT BROADCAST RADIO AND TV IS.

AND THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY INTO THIS.

NO ONE REALLY KNOWS.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH FLEXIBILITY THERE IS IN THIS.

>> WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A MOMENT.

NICHOL, ON TIKTOK, THERE IS SOME GOOD STUFF ON THERE.

>> I WOULDN'T KNOW.

I'M NOT -- >> I'M NOT A TIKTOK-ER MYSELF.

BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TOLD IF I GET ON TIKTOK, I WILL NOT GET OFF OF IT.

BECAUSE IT IS HILARIOUS.

IT IS GREAT STUFF AND YOU FIND YOURSELF THERE FOR HOURS.

WITH, WHETHER IT IS, YOU KNOW, EARTH CHANGING CONTENT, I DOUBT.

BUT IT IS FUNNY AND CREATIVE.

THERE IS GOOD STUFF AND THERE IS ALSO WHEN YOU ADD IN THE WHOLE IT IS RUN BY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT OR A COMPANY BEHOLDEN TO THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT.

BUT WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH TIKTOK NOW EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE NOT ON IT?

>> THESE ARE STILL COMPANIES THAT WE OPT IN.

SO I RECOGNIZE THE ARGUMENT ABOUT BROADCAST.

ALTHOUGH IT IS INTERESTING, WE LOOKED AT THAT AND WE EQUATED BROADCAST AT THE TIME, WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE CABLE EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS ON THE HORIZON.

WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE STREAMING SERVICES AND ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAVE FROM A BROADCAST STANDPOINT HAVE BEEN BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER IN TERMS OF HOURS THAT YOU WOULD SEE SEXUAL CONTENT OR WHAT CHILDREN'S PROGRAMMING LOOKS LIKE.

WE TALK IN ABOUT CLASS THAT WE WATCH FAMILY GUY AT 5:30 IN THE AFTERNOON WHERE THERE IS A SONG ABOUT RAPE AND OTHER ONE ABOUT CHILD MOLESTATION AND THAT IS PRIME TV WATCH FORGE CHILDREN.

THIS IDEA FOR TIKTOK, I'M NOT ON IT, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MY DATA BEING CULTIVATED BY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT IF THAT IS HAPPENING.

BUT WE DO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS A FREEDOM TO MAKE DECISIONS AND IN THIS COUNTRY AND THE IDEA OF THE GOVERNMENT SAYING THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THINGS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE ARBITERS OF WHAT RESTRICTIONS WE HAVE TO FOLLOW, I'M PRETTY NERVE OUT ABOUT THAT.

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW PARTISAN POLITICS HAVE BECOME.

MANY ARE DONE FOR INDIVIDUAL PURSUITS.

>> CHRIS, IS THERE A LINE?

CAN WE DRAW A LINE?

THE FAMOUS THING IS I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT.

FAMOUS SUPREME COURT RULING.

DO WE KNOW HARMFUL THINGS WHEN WE SEE IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA?

>> YES, AND IN A PLATFORMS KNOW IT TOO.

AS PART OF THE STATE BILLS THERE IS A BIG PIECE OF LEGISLATION READY TO COME TO THE SENATE FLOOR CALLED THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.

JUST GOT INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE.

IT WOULD PREVENT THE SORT OF DARK MATERIAL TO BE SHOWN TO A 12-YEAR-OLD ONLINE.

SO THERE IS A LINE THAT CAN BE MECHANICALLY ESTABLISHED BY THESE PLATFORMS.

>> HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IT IS A 12-YEAR-OLD WATCHING IT AND NOT A 25-YEAR-OLD?

>> THEY KNOW.

THEY KNOW FROM THEIR HABITS WITHIN ABOUT SIX CLICKS.

AND YOUTUBE KNOWS TOO.

EVERYTHING -- EVERYTHING THAT NEED TO KNOW ABOUT YOU INCLUDING YOUR AGE.

>> CAN WE REGULATE THAT?

LEGALLY, DAVID?

>> IT IS TOO EARLY TO TELL.

BECAUSE THE COURTS HAVEN'T RULED ON THIS.

THERE IS ALL SORTS OF LITIGATION.

AGAIN TO THE HISTORIAN, WHAT ELSE IS INTERESTING ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON.

THE TWO SOCIETIES ABROAD THAT LEGALLY AND HISTICLY THE U.S. IS CLOSEST TO ARE THE UNITED KINGDOM AND CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM PASSED A MAJOR LAW AND THE CANADIANS ARE ABOUT TO DO THE SAME.

SO THE TREND IS IN THIS DIRECTION.

>> WHAT ARE THOSE LAWS LIKE?

>> WELL, NICOLE MAY KNOW THIS BETTER THAN I DO BECAUSE OF WHAT SHE'S IN.

JUST HAVING GLANCED AT THEM.

THEY DID REGULATE CONTENT, RIGHT.

AND IN OTHER WORDS, AND THAT IS WAY ONE TO GO.

ANOTHER IS DENYING ACCESS IF YOU'RE TOO YOUNG.

BUT THERE ARE -- THERE ARE OTHER THINGS.

IT REMINDS ME OF THE EARLY EFFORTS TO DEAL WITH SMOKING.

YOU KEEP TRY THINGS UNTIL YOU FIND THINGS THAT WORK.

AND ONE OF THE COMICAL THINGS ABOUT THIS PANEL IS YOU ARE PRESENTED WITH FIVE -- FIVE MIDDLE-AGED FOUR -- I CAN COUNT.

FOUR MIDDLE-AGED PEOPLE WHO DON'T USE TIKTOK.

SO I TALKED TO 20 SOMETHINGS AND TALKED ABOUT THIS AND THEY AGREE WITH THE SURGEON GENERAL.

THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM.

SO WE'LL FIND A WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS.

NICOLE'S POINT I THINK IS WELL TAKEN.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU COULD FIND A SOLUTION THAT ALSO IN THE LONG RUN CREATE BIG PROBLEMS.

AND SO THE CHALLENGE IS TO AVOID THAT ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT SIDE.

>> SO LET'S OPEN IT UP TO THE FOLKS THAT ARE YOUNGER THAN US HERE.

WE HAVE A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE HERE.

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ON TIKTOK?

>> WIKIPEDIA EXISTS AND IT DOES A CASE WHERE IT IS A FORM OF SOCIAL MEDIA WITH A HIGHER DEGREE OF CONSENSUS MAKING ON THE PLATFORM.

AND IS IT NOT POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE POLICY UNDERPINNINGS BEHIND THAT AND CARRY IS OVER TO THE OTHER PLATFORMS.

>> IS WIKIPEDIA A MODEL?

IT DOESN'T TART OUT THAT WAY.

PEOPLE WERE VERY SKEPTICAL OF WIKIPEDIA AT THE START.

>> I ONCE LISTENED TO AN EXPERT HERE AT OSSA ON WIKIPEDIA AND THE ARTICLES WENT WAY UP.

IT DEVELOPED A POLICING MECHANISM TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE CONTENT.

AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONCERNS, RIGHT.

ONE IS LITERALLY SOMEONE TRYING TO GET YOU ADDICTED.

THAT IS WHY I LIKE THE TOBACCO ANALYSIS.

DID THE INDUSTRY TRY TO GET AMERICANS ADDICTED TO CIGARETTES.

IT ABSOLUTELY DID.

AND TIKTOK I GATHER IS LIKE THAT.

HOW MANY OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA SITES ARE LIKE THAT, I'M NOT QUITE SURE.

BUT LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR HOUSTON, WHEN THE OHIO MEASURE PASSED, AND THEN WAS SORT OF STOPPED FOR THE MOMENT IN THE COURTS, EMPHASIZED ADDICTIVE EFFORTS BY SOCIAL MEDIA SITES AIMED AT ADOLESCENTS THAT DO VERY REAL HARM.

SO, I'M NOT SURE ANYONE IS ADDICTED TO WIKIPEDIA.

I DON'T THINK IT IS INTENDED TO PRODUCE THAT RESULT.

>> I'VE ADDED AND DILUTED INSTAGRAM AT LEAST FOUR TIMES ON MY PHONE BECAUSE I FIND MYSELF GETTING SUCKED IN.

IS THAT THE MOST HARMFUL THING.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT DISINFORMATION, THE DATA MINING AND THE BULLYING, IS THE ADDICTIVE NATURE OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA THE MOST HARMFUL THING IN YOUR MIND.

>> I THINK IT IS THE CYBER BULLYING AND THE SEX-TORTION AND THE VULNERABLE KIDS BEING TRICKED INTO OR LURED INTO REALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY.

AND THE SEC THING I WOULD SAY IS IT IS ALL OF THIS PRESSURE LIKE KIM KARDASHIAN.

AND SO YOU HAVE A WHOLE GENERATION OF KIDS WHO ARE ANXIOUS AND DEPRESSED.

TWO OUT OF THREE TEENAGERS -- TEENAGE GIRLS ARE CHRONICALLY SAD OR HOPELESS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MEASURE UP TO THE STANDARDS THEY SEE.

>> THERE ARE SO MANY PIECES TO THIS.

I REMEMBER WHEN E.J.

LADELL, THE BASKETBALL TEAM TO ORAL ROBERTS, E.J.

LADELL WAS TORMENTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

HORRIBLE THINGS SAID TO HIM.

NOW YOU'RE BOTH NODDING AND I SAID TO HIM, DELETE IT.

WHY DON'T YOU JUST GET OFF OF IT.

HE'S LIKE, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

THIS IS HOW I INTERACT WITH MY FRIENDS.

WE DON'T TALK ON THE PHONE.

THIS IS HOW WE TALK TO EACH OTHER.

SO I THINK THIS IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO START TO REGULATE THINGS AND STUDENTS BEING UNDER THIS STRESS AND THE ANXIETY THAT THEY HAVE, THAT IS A CULTURAL PHENOMENON THAT TRANSCENDS SOCIAL MEDIA.

WE CREATE K-12 SPACE WITH STANDARDIZED TESTING AND THE WAY THAT STUDENTS ARE MONITORED THERE AND ALL SORTS OF DYNAMICS THAT HAVE GONE INTO THE INABILITY TO PLAY OUTSIDE WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND THE WAY WE'VE DEVELOPED WITH SOCIETY.

>> AND WE DO REGULATE RADIO AND TELEVISION, BECAUSE WHEN HE FIRST CAME ON THE SCENE USED THE PUBLIC AIRWAYS TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION.

SO THEY BELONG TO ALL OF US AND WE LICENSE A PORTION OF THAT AIRWAVES SPECTRUM.

THERE IS NO WIRE HERE.

WHY NOT REGULATE MOST OF US ACCESS ALL OF THE PLATFORMS WIRELESSLY.

ARE WE NOT USING THE AIRWAYS YOUR WAY, YOUR PHONE WITH THE FCC LOGO ON THEM, THERE IS A LEGAL CASE TO REGULATE IT LIKE WE DO WOSU TV AND WOSU RADIO.

>> AND THAT DECISION DID MENTION THAT.

WE HAD TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ALLOCATE FREQUENCIES SO SIGNALS WOULDN'T JAM EACH OTHER.

BUT JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS WHO WROTE THE OPINION FOR THE COURT DID EMPHASIZE THEY COME INTO YOUR HOUSE, YOUR HOME.

AND SO IF MORE AND MORE ADOLESCENTS FEEL THEY MUST BE ON SOCIAL MEDIA, AND MORE AND MORE PLATFORMS SEND THEM THINGS, ONCE THEIR ON, THAT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT AND ARE NOT GOOD FOR THEM, THEN IT BECOMES MORE LIKE BROADCAST RADIO AND TV.

>> WE'RE JUST TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD.

WE'VE BECOME SO DEPENDENT ON THE PHONES.

WHICH ARE REALLY TERRIFIC DEVICES.

THEY ARE.

THERE IS BAD THINGS ABOUT IT AND WE DO SCROLL AND GET ANNOYED BY -- >> BUT IT IS MOST POWERFUL COMPUTER YOU'VE EVER OWNED.

>> WE GET ANNOYED BUT THEY ARE WONDERFUL DEVICES.

ARE WE TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD TO CLAMP DOWN?

TO MAKE IT TOUGHER TO USE?

>> TOUGHER?

>> IF THAT IS HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE IT.

ESPECIALLY IF YOU TAKE MY PHONE AWAY AND IN MY THIRD GRADE CLASS AND MY TENTH GRADE CLASS.

>> YES.

I THINK WHAT WE COULD DO IS -- IS WHAT I SHARED EARLY ON.

CHANGE THE WAY THAT THE PLATFORMS WORK, MIKE.

SO DON'T GET OFF THE PLATFORM.

BUT HAVE SECURITY SETTINGS HIGH ENOUGH SO THAT SOMEONE WHO IS CATFISHING A 15-YEAR-OLD IN LEWIS CENTER COULD NOT GET HIS INFORMATION BECAUSE HE HAS THE PRIVACY SETTINGS ON.

THAT WOULD STOP A HUGE AMOUNT OF CYBER BULLYING AND SEX-TORTION.

>> AND WOULD THEY BE AUTOMATICALLY DEFAULTED TO THE PHONE AND HE TAKES THEM OFF.

>> YES.

HE TAKES THEM OFF.

AND THE FEDERAL BILL DOES THE SAME THING.

COME IN TIGHT, TIGHT AND THEN YOU CHANGE IF YOU LIKE.

THAT WOULD IMPACT A HUGE AMOUNT OF THE NEGATIVE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING LIKE SEX-TORTION.

>> WE HAVE LAWS NOW, SLANDER AND LIBEL, AND YOU CAN'T SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT PEOPLE BUT IT IS A CIVIL PENALTY.

WHY AREN'T THOSE -- ARE THOSE LAWS STRONG ENOUGH TO REGULATE THIS CURRENT SITUATION, DAVID?

>> WELL, AND THAT IS ANOTHER AREA WHERE THERE MAY BE MOVEMENT AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL.

BUT AGAIN, WITH POTENTIALLY TROUBLING CONSEQUENCES, RIGHT.

SO THERE IS THIS LANDMARK RULING FROM THE '60s WHICH MAKES IT HARDER TO DO MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS ESPECIALLY NEWS ORGANIZATIONS BUT SOME WOULD LIKE TO REVISIT "NEW YORK TIMES" VERSUS SULLIVAN.

JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER TO SUE AND IMPOSE DAMAGES.

BUT YOU COULD SEE WHY THAT COULD CREATE AT LEAST AS MANY PROBLEMS AS IT MIGHT SOLVE.

>> SHOULD ALEX JONES HAVE FACED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR SAYING THAT SANDY HOOK WAS A HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTION?

FACE CIVILED PENALTIES, ALLEGEDLY HE'S GOING TO GO BROKE AT SOME POINT.

>> SOMETIME.

>> BUT SHOULD HE FACE CRIMINAL PENALTIES?

>> NO.

>> AND I TRIED TO REMEMBER, THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996 WHICH WAS OVER TURNED HAD CRIMINAL PENALTIES IF I REMEMBER.

AND SO I THINK THAT IS A HEAVIER LIFT FOR GETTING CONSTITUTIONAL ACCEPTANCE, RIGHT.

SO AS OPPOSED TO CIVIL FINES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT, IT SOUNDS VERY LAST RESORT-LIKE.

>> I THINK YOU NEED TO APPLY IT TO DONALD TRUMP NOW.

>> WELL THAT IS -- >> HE HAS A PROMINENT CIVIL CASE, DO YOU THINK HE WOULD GO TO -- WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES WITH E. JEAN CARROLL, WOULD HAVE THE STOMACH FOR LYING ABOUT PEOPLE.

LYING IS PROTECTED SPEECH UNTIL IT DAMAGED SOMEONE'S REPUTATION.

AND WHAT ALEX JONES DID IS THE MOST HORRIBLE THING YOU COULD DO TO PEOPLE, THEY OBVIOUSLY LOST THEIR CHILD WHICH IS THE WORST POSSIBLE THING BUT THEN TO HAVE SOMEONE COMPOUND IT.

BUT AT WHAT POINT DO YOU CHARGE SOMEONE CRIMINALLY FOR THAT.

WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT LYING IN GENERAL AND I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY ONE OF US WOULD BE CLEAR OF NOT HAVING LIED.

>> WELL THERE IS A LINE, CHRIS.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, NEGATIVE POLITICAL ADS DON'T NECESSARILY LIE.

BUT THEY CERTAINLY DON'T TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH.

SO YOU COULD SAY THERE IS AN OUNCE OF TRUTH IN THERE AND IT SHOULD BE PROTECTED.

ALEX JONES, THERE WASN'T AN OUNCE OF TRUTH THERE.

SO WHERE IS THAT LINE AND WHO SHOULD DRIVE IT?

>> I THINK IT IS A COMMUNITY OF PARENTS.

I THINK IT IS THE USERS.

GOVERNMENT HAS A ROLE TO CONDITION TROLL THE OPERATION OF THESE WEBSITE, OF THESE PLATFORMS THAT ADDICT YOUNG IMMATURE BRAINS AND REQUIRE PLATFORMS TO DESIGN BASED ON THE AGE THAT THEY KNOW ARE COMING ON THEIR PLATFORMS.

AND THAT IS PART OF THE U.K. BILL THAT PASSED, PART OF THE CALIFORNIA BILL.

I THINK THAT -- AND ABOVE THE LINE, MIKE, THEN -- >> AND JUST TO -- AT THE RISK OF STATING THE OBVIOUS, TO A HISTORIAN, ONCE THINGS GET BIPARTISAN, THINGS CHANGE.

AND THESE PROPOSED BANS ARE IN CONSERVATIVE STATES, THEIR IN LIBERAL STATES.

IT IS NOT AS THOUGH THIS IS A PARTISAN ISSUE ANY MORE.

BECAUSE OF THE INCREASING EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS DOING HARM.

SO I DO THINK SOMETHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

THE INTERESTING QUESTION IS TO ME IN A WAY IS OF THE VARIOUS STRATEGIES DISCUSSED, WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY WORK.

IN OTHER WORDS, IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM AND MAKING A REAL DIFFERENCE.

AND I HAD ONE CONVERSATION WITH TWO 20 SOMETHINGS AND THEY WERE TRYING TO PUZZLE OUT HOW YOU WOULD OPERATIONALIZE TEASE LAWS IN A WAY THAT WOULD MAKE THEM EFFECTIVE AND YOU COULD WRITE A GOOD LAW BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT WORK.

EVEN IF IT IS UNDER -- NO ONE UNDER 16.

BECAUSE COULD YOU PRACTICALLY SPEAKING MAKE THAT EFFECTIVE?

>> AND THAT IS THE QUESTION.

EVEN IF GOVERNMENT COULD, EVEN IF GOVERNMENT SHOULD, IS IT NIMBLE ENOUGH TO KEEP UP WITH THE RAPIDLY CHANGING COMMUNICATION INDUSTRY.

AND INDUSTRY THAT HAS BEEN CHANGING SINCE HUMANS BEGAN TO SPEAK WITH EACH OTHER.

WE'LL CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THIS ISSUE AND DISCUSS IT.

THAT IS "COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD" FOR THIS WEEK.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA ON FACEBOOK AND YOU COULD WATCH US ANY TIME AT OUR WEBSITE WOSU.ORG/COTR, YOUTUBE AND ALSO THE PBS VIDEO APP.

FOR OUR CREW AND OUR PANEL, I'M MIKE THOMPSON.

HAVE A GOOD WEEK.

♪♪ ♪♪