Kansas lawmakers are weighing a proposal that would require new age-verification measures for online platforms, part of a growing national effort to address concerns about children’s safety in digital spaces. The goal is understandable. Parents across Kansas want their kids protected online. The harder question is how far government should go—and whether mandates aimed at technology companies end up displacing parental judgment rather than reinforcing it.
That question has taken on new urgency after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Court upheld a Texas law requiring certain commercial websites dominated by sexually explicit content to verify users’ ages. Importantly, the Court applied intermediate scrutiny, concluding the law primarily regulated material that is obscene as to minors while only incidentally burdening adult access to protected speech.
But the ruling was narrow—and that distinction matters for Kansas.
The Court did not decide whether similar age-verification mandates could be extended to app stores, social media platforms, or mixed-content digital services used daily by both adults and children. Those environments host vast amounts of lawful speech, and any requirement that users verify their age by submitting sensitive personal information raises unresolved questions about privacy, speech rights, and implementation.
Kansas’s current debate sits squarely in that unresolved space. At its core, the debate isn’t really about technology. It’s about who we trust—parents or bureaucrats.
What the Kansas Bill Is Trying to Do
The proposal would require platforms and app stores to verify a user’s age to prevent children from accessing harmful content. These types of bills are often argued as a necessary response to concerns about social media, online safety, and minors’ mental health.
The goal sounds reasonable. Every parent wants their kids to be safe.
But policy doesn’t operate on intentions alone. It operates on incentives, trade-offs, and unintended consequences.
The Real Problems With Age Verification Mandates
Concern starts with privacy risks. Age verification typically requires users to upload government-issued IDs or sensitive personal data. That creates massive new databases of information that are prime targets for hackers and misuse. In other words, in the name of protecting kids, the policy could expose millions of Kansans—adults included—to identity theft and data breaches.
There’s also the constitutional question. Forcing users to verify their age before accessing lawful content raises First Amendment concerns, especially when adults face new barriers to speech simply to avoid liability. A supposedly child-focused policy ends up restricting adult behavior.
Then there’s enforcement. These mandates do not just affect large technology companies. Compliance costs and legal uncertainty can also deter smaller platforms and startups, reducing competition and leaving families with fewer choices.
Mandates vs. Parents
Age verification laws assume that government mandates can replace parental judgment. They can’t. Parents already have tools—device settings, content filters, account controls, and direct supervision—that are far more flexible and effective than one-size-fits-all regulation. These tools allow families to make decisions based on age, maturity, and values, not legislative guesswork. Parents could also just not let their kids go online or on certain apps until they are ready.
As I’ve written about similar proposals in Texas, blanket restrictions often look decisive but end up crowding out parental responsibility while delivering little real protection. Once lawmakers start down the road of deputizing platforms as age police, it becomes easier to justify more controls, more mandates, and less family autonomy—all under the banner of “safety.”
Better Ideas Exist
Critics aren’t saying “do nothing.” They’re saying do better.
Real solutions that focus on empowering parents rather than regulating everyone else—clear disclosures, robust parental controls, education tools, and enforcement of existing laws against actual criminal behavior.
That approach respects families, protects privacy, and avoids turning private companies into extensions of the state.
The Question Kansans Should Ask
The Kansas debate shouldn’t be reduced to whether lawmakers “care about kids.” The real question is whether mandated age verification makes families safer—or just makes government bigger, privacy weaker, and parents less empowered.
Good policy starts with humility. Parents know their kids better than legislators ever will. Trusting families over bureaucratic mandates isn’t radical. It’s common sense—and it’s the foundation of a free society.
