I'm serializing my forthcoming Emory Law Journal article titled Addiction to Constitutionally Protected Activity: Speech, Press, and Religion. In my earlier posts, I argued that concerns about psychological addiction can't justify restrictions that interfere with behavior presumptively protected by the Free Exercise Clause. If I am correct, this suggests that they likewise can't justify restrictions with behavior presumptively protected by the Free Speech or Press Clause, which includes most aspects of social media and video game interface design.
[* * *]
As the Court held, "what is good for First Amendment rights of speech"—in the sense of what would justify restricting free speech rights—"must be good for First Amendment rights of religion as well."[62] And, conversely, the Court concluded, if a restriction on religious behavior can't be justified by a desire to protect people, a similar restriction on speech generally can't be, either.[63]
