This is such a reach. The best argument Mike can give in favor of face filters is that they're free speech, apparently, which is dubious (we've already decided that under-13s don't get any social media "speech" at all). Maybe Mike is in favor of removing that caveat too.

It's also wrong. Meta has no obligation under the US constitution to protect anyone's speech, nor does any private individual or business. This is just a case of "free speech absolutism" (aka "freeze peach absolutism").

What might (and likely would) be unconstitutional would be a law forbidding children from posting modified pictures of themselves anywhere online.