by Kelly Himes Brolly, author of “Laws, Rules, and Rights: A Guide to Protecting Children in Public Schools,” Double Umbrella Publications, LLC (2023).
Introduction
Wouldn’t it be great if your children or others couldn’t circumvent the parental control apps on their phones? Wouldn’t it be great if content could be blocked at the network-level before it reaches your children’s phones? Well, the technology has arrived, and one phone service is making its debut with network-level blocks or “hard blocks” that filter out at least 11 content areas. In other words, even the adults cannot unblock them. Plus, there are roughly 100 other content areas that can be filtered at the phone level. The name of the phone service is Radiant Mobile.
Not surprisingly, some groups are crying foul. Why? The reasons vary. Some groups want to promote an ideology. Some want your children as consumers. Some are predators who want to reach children with pornography and other harmful topics. So, as these groups push back against network-level controls, how do you push back against them? By knowing a little bit about the laws that protect your children and your constitutional rights.
The Support
1) Federal Law: Children’s Internet Protection Act
Parental controls on your children’s phones, whether on an app or at the network-level, are consistent with federal laws requiring certain internet blockers in schools and libraries. In 2000, Congress enacted the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). CIPA requires schools and libraries that receive federal monies to install internet software that blocks obscenity, pornography, and materials considered dangerous to minors. The bottom line is that CIPA protects children’s internet usage in schools and libraries, much like apps and network-level blocks protect children on their phones – all in keeping with federal law. For more information on CIPA, see the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Consumer Guide here. To file an online CIPA complaint, click here.
2) State Obscenity Laws and “Materials Harmful to Minors”
Most states have criminal obscenity laws that make it a crime to give pornography and other harmful material to minors. Each state’s laws define “obscene material” or “materials harmful to minors” and establish the consequences or punishment.[1] Parental controls on your children’s phone, whether on an app or at the network-level, are consistent with these state criminal laws.
For example, in Georgia, it is “unlawful for any person knowingly to sell or loan for monetary consideration or otherwise furnish or disseminate to a minor: (1) Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body which depicts sexually explicit nudity, sexual conduct, or sadomasochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors; or (2) Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced, or sound recording which contains any matter enumerated in paragraph (1) of this subsection, or explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct, or sadomasochistic abuse and which, taken as a whole, is harmful to minors. . . .” O.C.G.A. § 16-12-103 (emphasis added).
If you were wondering . . . .
If you are wondering how this content is allowed in schools, it is because approximately 44 of the 50 states give schools and/or libraries exemptions to these criminal laws.[2] If you are wondering how this content is allowed on the internet, it is because Congress gave an exemption to internet service providers and “discussion forums” in Section 230 in the Communications Decency Act of 1996.[3] Nonetheless, state obscenity laws are still enforced against others and may be the basis for a criminal complaint against those who initiate the harmful content. If you believe you have a basis for a criminal obscenity complaint, immediately contact an attorney in your jurisdiction. For assistance finding an attorney, you can contact your state’s bar association. Please act immediately because time limitations called statutes of limitations may apply to your situation.
If opposing groups claim that obscenity is “speech” under the First Amendment, remind them that obscenity is “unprotected speech.”[4] As a result, government can restrict and even punish obscenity using criminal laws and other restrictions. Moreover, the First Amendment does not give individuals and groups the right to “speak” to your child. The First Amendment protects against government regulation of speech.[5] Just as individuals and groups cannot appear at your door and demand to speak to your children in person, they cannot do so over their phones. Why? Because you have constitutional rights.
3) The U.S. Constitution: Parental Rights and Religious Freedom
The U.S. Constitution protects the rights of parents to make decisions regarding “the care, custody, and control of their children,” to “direct the religious upbringing and education of their children,” and to opt-out of LGBTQ+ content in public schools.[6] Here are just a few quotes from these U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
- “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”[7]
- “Drawing on ‘enduring American tradition,’ we have long recognized the rights of parents to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children.” And this is not merely a right to teach religion in the confines of one’s own home. Rather, it extends to the choices that parents wish to make for their children outside the home. . . . As a result, the right of parents “to direct the religious upbringing of their” children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.”[8]
- “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”[9]
- “The [school’s] ‘LGBTQ+inclusive’ curriculum and no-opt-out policy pursues the kind of ideological conformity that Pierce and Yoder prohibit.”[10]
4) Public School “Opt-Outs”
In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Mahmoud v. Taylor, “[We] hold that the [school’s]introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+inclusive’ storybooks – combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs – substantially interfered with the religious development of their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable.”[11] Focusing on the parents’ religious beliefs, the Court stated that the content was “unmistakably normative,” meaning that that the story books at issue tried to establish norms or standards for behavior, morals, ethics, or viewpoints. The Court found that these messages undermine the religious and moral message many American parents want to pass on to their children in violation of their constitutional rights.[12]
The Mahmoud decision opens the door for parents nationwide to have their children opt-out of this and other public school content that undermines their moral and religious beliefs. If parents can opt-out of this content in public schools, they can certainly opt-out at home using either parental control apps or network-level blocks. Parental rights and religious freedoms apply broadly – at home, in public schools, and beyond. For an opt-out form, go here or to www.doubleumbrellapublications.com.
Hope for the Future
Phone service plans with network-level blocks are a welcomed advancement to protect children and families. Likewise, parental control apps for phones are continually improving. Now, it is our job as parents and concerned citizens to support and defend them – along with our constitutional rights.
Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only. No information contained in this article should be construed as legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. Readers are encouraged to contact an attorney in their jurisdiction with any questions.
Kelly Himes Brolly is an attorney, author, consultant, and the Managing Member of Double Umbrella Publications, LLC, d/b/a Double Umbrella Consulting. To order Kelly’s book, “Laws, Rules, and Rights: A Guide to Protecting Children in Public Schools,” Double Umbrella Publications, LLC (2023), go to Amazon here. For more information, see Kelly’s podcast on ThinQ Media titled “The Informed Parent.” To learn more about parental rights and public schools in all 50 states, go here or to www.doubleumbrellapublications.com.
[1] See Brolly, Kelly, “Laws, Rules, and Rights: A Guide to Protecting Children in Public Schools,” Double Umbrella Publications, LLC (2023), Appendix A for the citations to various state obscenity laws and exemptions.
[2] Reisman, Judith A., and McAlister, Mary E., “Materials Deemed Harmful to Minors Are Welcomed into Classrooms and Libraries via Educational “Obscenity Exemptions,” Liberty University Law Review, Vol 12: Iss. 3, Article 3, 2018. For more information on obscenity exemptions, see Kelly’s podcast on ThinQ Media titled “The Informed Parent.”
[3] Congress allowed internet service providers and “discussion forums” to be exempt from defamation and other laws under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230 states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” and “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” While the actual person or entity (such as news media) that posts the statements is potentially liable, the “discussion forum” that is the “deep pocket” is not under Section 230.
[4] Roth v. U.S., 354 U.S. 476 (1957) (holding that obscenity is unprotected speech); Ginsburg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968) (holding that states may use a different definition of obscenity for material deemed harmful to minors than the definition of obscenity for adults). Unprotected speech also includes: false or deceptive advertising (Bd. of Tr. of State Univ. of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989)), fighting words (Bd. of Tr. of State Univ. of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989)), and defamation (using state tort laws).
[5] The First Amendment protects against government regulation of speech. It states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. CONST. amend. I (Emphasis added). The plain language of the Free Speech Clause restricts federal government regulation of speech. The Free Speech Clause has also been extended through caselaw to restrict state and local government regulation of speech. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (discussing the incorporation of these rights through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).
[6] Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025) (stating, “we hold that the [school’s]introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+inclusive’ storybooks – combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs – substantially interfered with the religious development of their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable”); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (stating that the U.S. Constitution “protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children”); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (recognizing “fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child”); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 213-214 (1972) (stating “the Court’s holding in Pierce stands as a charter of the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children” and recognizing “liberty of parents…to direct the upbringing and education of children”); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (parents have the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control”); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (concluding that the state legislature unconstitutionally interfered “the power of parents to control the education of their own”).
[7] Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232-233 (1972).
[8] Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025).
[9] W.Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnett, 319 U.S. 624, 633-34 (1943)
[10] Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025), J. Thomas, concurrence p. 8.
[11] Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522, 543-544 (2025). Charter schools are also public schools and are impacted by the Court’s decision. However, the case does not directly impact private schools because the First Amendment protects against government infringement of constitutional rights. Private schools are not government-run schools.
