Colorado Social Media Regulation Runs Into the First Amendment

Colorado Politics reports that Colorado lawmakers and gubernatorial candidates are split over how far the state should go in regulating social media platforms used by minors. The story centers in part on Patti Lujan, a Colorado mother pursuing a lawsuit against Snapchat after her daughter’s 2020 accidental overdose, alleging the platform helped connect her daughter with a drug dealer and obstructed parental supervision.

This is a tough one, and anyone pretending otherwise should be escorted gently away from the microphone. Big Tech has built addiction machines for children, and parents are watching kids get chewed up by algorithms, predators, dealers, sextortion, and garbage content. But the First Amendment does not become optional because politicians found a scary headline. I believe the same thing about the First Amendment that I believe about the Second: shall not be infringed. Ultimately, parents have the first duty to raise, protect, and discipline their children. Government is not the wise babysitter of the internet.

The Bullet Point Brief

• Patti Lujan’s loss deserves respect, not political prop treatment. A grieving parent saying a platform helped create the conditions for tragedy should be heard seriously, not shoved into the usual campaign-content grinder.
• Colorado passed SB26-011, which requires covered platforms to maintain a system, such as a staffed hotline, for law enforcement to contact them with search warrants for user data at all times. That is a narrow, law-enforcement-focused tool. Good. Make platforms answer warrants without turning private companies into speech police.
• Gov. Jared Polis vetoed broader bills, including SB25-086 and HB26-1255, raising concerns about platforms enforcing state law, private companies deciding what speech qualifies as threatening, and First Amendment problems. For once, the constitutional caution is not crazy. Even a blind squirrel finds the Constitution now and then.
• Candidates are all over the map. Victor Marx, Phil Weiser, and Michael Bennet all signaled support for stronger regulation in different forms, while Scott Bottoms opposed SB25-086 and Barbara Kirkmeyer voted for it. Translation: everybody wants to protect kids, but the minute the bill language shows up, the room starts sweating.
• Big Tech does not get a halo here. Pretending these platforms are just neutral bulletin boards for children is industrial-strength nonsense. Algorithms, disappearing messages, design choices, and weak enforcement all shape what kids encounter.

My Bottom Line

The core question is not simple, but it is unavoidable: if platforms are allegedly facilitating access to predators, drug dealers, sexual exploitation, or destructive content, who owns the consequences?

Parents do. First and foremost. That cannot be outsourced to Sacramento app designers, Denver legislators, school districts, or a governor’s task force with matching lanyards. Parents need to set rules, inspect devices, say no, take the phone, and be willing to be unpopular in their own kitchen. That is the job.

But tech companies own consequences too. They built the systems. They profit from attention. They know minors are on their platforms. They know bad actors exploit the tools. If law enforcement shows up with a warrant, there should be no hide-and-seek behind corporate scale, staffing excuses, or “please submit this form into the volcano” customer-service theater.

And the state has a role, but it must be narrow, constitutional, and accountable. Punish crime. Help law enforcement get lawful access quickly. Require transparency where it does not chill protected speech. Protect kids without handing politicians a giant censorship wrench they will absolutely use on whatever speech they hate next Tuesday.

Colorado parents are stuck between Big Tech’s addiction engines and politicians who turn every crisis into a press release, a bill draft, and a campaign talking point before anything actually changes. The answer is not “ban everything.” The answer is parental authority, real law enforcement tools, constitutional restraint, and tech companies being forced to stop pretending they are innocent bystanders in the machine they built.

Source: Colorado Politics