The Weaponization of Regulation
FIRST INSTANCE: The 'Protect Our Children' Precedent The use of child protection as a spearhead for regulatory expansion is not new. In 1996, the US passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA), broadly attempting to regulate 'indecent' content online, citing concerns for minors (ACLU v. Reno, 1997). While parts of the CDA were swiftly struck down as unconstitutional, the playbook — invoke child
safety to justify broad content control — was established. This approach found success with the PROTECT Act of 2003, which focused on child pornography but significantly expanded federal power over online content. REPETITIONS: Expanding the Definition of Harm This tactic was recycled in 2011 when Homeland Security began seizing domain names under the 'Operation In Our Sites' initiative, initially
targeting sites distributing child pornography but quickly expanding to alleged copyright infringers, blurring the lines of enforcement (EFF, 2011). Similarly, in 2018, FOSTA-SESTA legislation, framed as combating sex trafficking, led to the widespread shutdown of numerous online platforms and services, effectively censoring protected speech alongside illicit content and disproportionately
impacting marginalized communities, as documented by organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (2018). OUTCOMES: Centralized Control and Chilling Effects Each iteration of this strategy has resulted in a gradual increase in centralized control over online expression and a chilling effect on legitimate speech. Platforms, faced with unclear legal boundaries and severe penalties, often