Threats to freedom on the Internet keep popping up. The latest outrage is a proposal by Surgeon General Vivek Murthy to compel social media websites to deliver a warning of “potential mental health harms.” He doesn’t claim that social media have been scientifically shown to damage mental health; rather he says “social media has not been proved safe.”

What would it take to “prove” them safe? When the burden of proof is shifted to the negative, people can make unlimited claims of possible harm, and the defenders must somehow show these arbitrary assertions are false. Murthy has even cited lack of evidence as a cause for panic.

He has asserted that the situation is an “emergency.” In other words, he wants Congress to rush the decree through without debate.

Compulsory speech is, except in limited cases, a violation of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech has to include the freedom not to speak. Americans may not be compelled to pledge allegiance to the flag or to recite a prayer. Forcing website owners to say “We haven’t proven our site won’t harm your mental health” is an outrage.

The NBC News article doesn’t mention any of these objections or any others. It’s a government propaganda piece. Several other articles I’ve checked likewise deliver the government line without mentioning that anyone might be concerned about the First Amendment issues.

We’ve often heard from the far left that some kinds of speech literally inflict injury on listeners and should not be protected by free-speech guarantees. Hearing it from a high administration official, dressed up in pseudoscience, is considerably more disturbing. The article cites “exposure to violent and sexual content” as “potential harms.” If warning labels can be mandated on websites that have those types of content, they can be mandated on books, articles, and news videos. And, of course, musical recordings.

Recording artists fought hard against the imposition of an unconstitutional system of mandatory warning labels. (Any warning labels you see today are voluntary and often serve as an advertisement more than a warning.) It may be time for another fight against compulsory warning.