Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Media Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, educators and law enforcement urge House committee to back social‑media protections for under‑16s
Summary
At a House Education Committee hearing on Senate Bill 199, lawmakers heard emotional family testimony and expert evidence supporting Amendment 5, which would require parental permission for children 15 and under on major social platforms, ban certain algorithmic features, and allow enforcement through the Attorney General's consumer‑protection division. Witnesses urged changes to protect children’s mental health and safety; lawmakers pressed for clarity on enforcement and scope.
The Indiana House Education Committee heard hours of testimony on a social‑media amendment to Senate Bill 199 on Wednesday as parents, clinicians, school leaders and law‑enforcement officials urged lawmakers to adopt parental‑consent and algorithm restrictions for children 15 and younger.
Chairman Behning described Amendment 5 as an approach that would require parental permission for users aged 15 and younger on major platforms, employ age‑estimation (rather than strict verification), prohibit sale of children’s data and limit ‘‘addictive’’ algorithmic features. Enforcement, he said, would be handled through the Attorney General’s consumer‑protection division.
Family testimony set an emotional tone. ‘‘My precious daughter, Haley Paige Busby, was lured away from our home, tragically murdered by an online predator,’’ said Beau Busby, who urged lawmakers not to let the opportunity to act pass. Multiple family witnesses and parents recounted exposure of young children to sexualized or dangerous content and urged parental tools and tighter platform accountability.
Health and education experts described a rising mental‑health crisis they link in part to digital environments. Dr. Lindsay Weaver, State Health Commissioner, cited survey data showing increased rates of depression and suicidal ideation among teens and said higher screen time correlates with worse outcomes. ‘‘Social media is a health concern,’’ she testified. School counselors and principals described daily disruptions, distracted students, and episodes of online harassment that followed students into classrooms.
Law‑enforcement officials supported the amendment, saying a large and growing caseload ties to online activity. Barbara Rosenberg, legislative director for the Indiana State Police, said the state’s internet crimes‑against‑children unit saw cyber tips increase from about 18,000 to nearly 30,000 year‑over‑year and supported giving parents more tools to reduce tragedies.
Witnesses and lawmakers probed implementation details: how platforms would distinguish between public posts and private direct messages, whether parental controls would cover students who create multiple or ‘fake’ accounts, and how the state would enforce rules for national or international platforms. Department staff and several witnesses said the amendment aims to limit unsolicited contact from strangers and provide parents monitoring and time‑control tools, but acknowledged the measure would not eliminate bullying or bad behavior that occurs via text messages or private channels.
Technical experts recommended concrete mechanisms: parental passwords or account access, age‑estimation and verification options, and provider‑paid verification (for example, low‑cost online notarization) rather than placing costs on parents. Several witnesses urged lawmakers to consider raising the age threshold to 16 or 17; supporters noted legal and litigation risks but pointed to states that have advanced similar laws and to judicial challenges that have not ended efforts elsewhere.
What’s next: The committee did not vote on the amendment. Chairman Behning calendared Amendment 5 for a future session and adjourned, leaving lawmakers to reconcile enforcement language and age thresholds before a vote.
