Two leading governors from opposite sides of the political spectrum joined forces this week to preach unity and condemn political violence, but they split on strategies to target polarization in the United States.
Govs. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) and Spencer Cox (R-UT) made a joint appearance on Tuesday evening, musing about rising tensions, particularly in the wake of political activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination in Utah and an arson attack on the Pennsylvania governor’s private residence.
The two men discussed how they came together during the tragedies and urged the public to do the same, instead of allowing political differences to drive wedges in relationships.
POLITICAL VIOLENCE ON THE RISE IN THE US: A TIMELINE OF KEY INCIDENTS
“I just need to tell you when that very dark day happened in my state [when Kirk died], the first call I got was from this guy, from Gov. Shapiro,” Cox said during an NBC interview at the Washington National Cathedral.
“I don’t care what color his politics are, in that moment, we were two Americans who were deeply saddened and struggling, and I’m grateful that there’s somebody I can trust, even though we disagree on a lot of things,” he added.
Shapiro praised Cox’s handling of the assassination.
“I saw him lift up not just Utahns but create an opportunity for a dialogue I think we sorely need in this country to try and lift everyone up and get us out of the darkness of political violence that has fallen upon us,” the Pennsylvania governor said.
But while they were unified in spirit, the two lawmakers were divided on certain matters of policy when it comes to targeting those they believe are responsible for perpetrating the polarization that has sparked violence.
The governors have both pinned the blame on social media companies for creating algorithms that create political division. Cox wants the state to be able to control whether children under 16 should have access to those platforms. Shapiro is reluctant to go that far, arguing he prefers to focus on expanding efforts to educate the public about both the positive and negative effects of social media.
“The approach that we’ve tried to take in Pennsylvania, led by our first lady, has been ensuring that digital literacy is taught in our classrooms, that our teachers are empowered to understand how to do it, and that our students are in a position to receive that information and understand these powerful phones and computers that they have,” Shapiro said. “They can be used for good, but they also have to be used in a way that folks understand fact from fiction, that they understand how addictive these platforms ar,e and how they can learn how to use them in moderation.”
“I think it is important that young people learn about these tools; they are empowered to use them responsibly, while at the same time, those of us in positions of authority hold these companies accountable,” he added.
TRUMP ADVISES THAT ANYONE BURNING AMERICAN FLAG WILL BE IMPRISONED FOR A YEAR
Cox countered Shapiro’s position.
“The damage is just too great on our kids right now,” he said. “[Social media companies] are bad-faith actors, and they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt.”
The disagreement between the two gubernatorial leaders reflects the growing tensions over the role the government should play in overseeing personal social media usage.
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) in early March vetoed legislation that sought to ban social media accounts for children under the age of 16, pointing to the importance of “supporting parents’ rights and maintaining the ability of adults to engage in anonymous speech.”
Later that month, the Florida Republican signed a different bill that prohibits those under 14 from becoming a social media account holder. The law also said parents may decide if their children between the ages of 14 and 15 can have their own social media accounts.
The move triggered a swift reaction from leading civil rights groups, who argued the law is a violation of free speech rights and strips authority away from parents. The controversy led a judge to issue a ruling earlier this year blocking the social media ban on the basis of concerns it was “likely facially unconstitutional” and restricted First Amendment rights.
A divided appeals court temporarily reversed the ruling in November, stating that the law “simply prevents [kids] from creating accounts on platforms that employ addictive features.”
PENNSYLVANIA LAWMAKERS SUBPOENA SHAPIRO OVER USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR HOME SECURITY
In a 29-page dissent, Judge Robin Rosenbaum disagreed, saying that the law “purports to regulate the speech of everyone who uses the covered social media websites.”
“For minors, it acts as a categorical ban on speech (and access to speech) on covered social media platforms. And it forces the platform to demand identifying information from all users, including adults. In doing so, it chills countless users’ speech on deeply personal, political, religious, and familial matters — reaching the heart of what the First Amendment was designed to protect in the first place,” he wrote.
