A U.S. District Court judge’s decision to strike down Ohio’s requirement that children under age 16 must have parental consent to use social media and some gaming apps is being viewed as a victory by trade group NetChoice (which represents TikTok, Snapchat, Meta and other companies) and some First Amendment advocates.

But it is important to read all of what Judge Algenon Marbley had to say on the matter. Marbley did not say the intent of the law was not commendable. He said it went too far.

Marbley said the law “resides at the intersection of two unquestionable rights: the rights of children to ‘a significant measure of’ freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment, and the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children free from unnecessary governmental intrusion.”

No part of that suggests parents should not still monitor their children’s activities online VERY closely. In fact, it probably is a good idea for parents to have their own rule in place that children must ask permission before downloading and engaging with any new app.

Certainly, parents should be aware of the people their children are interacting with — in real life and on the internet.

Marbley’s ruling simply means he understands it is not the government’s responsibility to dictate the way parents and kids work out this modern problem.

Lawmakers and the DeWine administration had their heart in the right place on this one, there is no doubt. And it is telling that social media companies celebrated the ruling, as they know how important young people are to their survival. So, parents and guardians, use the news as a reminder that — legal requirement or not — you do have a responsibility to your children when it comes to social media and other apps that could become harmful to them.

Perhaps Marbley is right that it is not the government’s place to tell you how you must protect them. Protect them, anyway.