"It's not my fault!" -- How the State Reinforces Lack of Accountability

 The news networks recently covered a story of Attorneys General from several states filing a lawsuit against social media companies for providing children access to harmful content. Their claim is that the rise in mental health crises among children is at least partly the fault of these social media companies. 

I agree that children ought to be protected from harmful things, including online content that disturbs their mental health. But, I question the motives of these AGs. If they prevail, the social media companies will likely be liable for hundreds of millions of dollars that these harmed children will never see. Is it really the children the AGs care about?

Hear me out. Remember back in December of 2021? Ethan Crumbley, a juvenile, took a gun to school in Oxford, Michigan. He killed four students and a teacher, and wounded several others. He faced prosecution, as an adult, for his horrific actions. His parents, too, were prosecuted for manslaughter for their son's actions. In this case, the Michigan AG determined that Ethan and his parents were responsible for his actions. 

Alternatively, recent court cases and legislative actions have concluded that juveniles cannot face mandatory life in prison sentences because of their impressionability, immaturity, and lack of development. Both the courts and legislatures recognized that social forces often heavily influence young minds. In these cases, social forces are largely to blame for the juveniles' actions. 

Now, I believe largely motivated by money, these Attorneys General are going after big tech. They want to hold them responsible for children's behavior. Certainly, these companies ought to have safeguards in place to protect children from harmful content, but our society cannot even agree what exactly is harmful. Somehow, school libraries ought not to censor any material young minds might want to explore, no matter how "harmful" it could be. But, big tech companies ought to? It makes no sense. 

But the double standards don't stop there. Attorneys General are responsible for holding people accountable for illegal actions. It's their jobs. Yet, state prosecutors are given "prosecutorial immunity" for their actions, even when illegal. Other state "agents," including police officers, judges, and corrections officers and staff are also usually protected by immunity. 

So, as I understand it, if you have no money the state can get from you, it's off to prison you go. You're personally responsible for your behavior (sometimes). If you have lots of money, then even if parents ought to protect their children, and children are otherwise held accountable for their own behavior, it's now the rich companies' fault. And, if you work for the state, you can basically get away with whatever because you're protected by immunity. Got it. 

Can we just tear the blindfold off of Lady Liberty already? Can we ditch the scales of justice? Blind justice is a fallacy, and fairness and equality are a farce. With these terribly mixed messages about responsibility, it's no wonder so many people in America want to blame everyone else for their actions.