Cases related to porn age verification bill are set to be heard by the Supreme Court

Fortune

In that case, the Supreme Court said less-restrictive measures like content-filtering software would be constitutional.
Upholding the Texas law “affords policymakers the breathing room they need to protect our nation’s children while preserving our First Amendment freedoms,” the lawmaker brief said.
In their Supreme Court brief, the challengers argued the Texas law sweeps in any website that contains any “salacious material,” not just porn, and includes massive loopholes for social media websites and search engines.
Using a higher standard, as the Supreme Court has done in the past “would not render states powerless to protect minors.
Volokh also said the Supreme Court may focus on technicalities of the Texas law, such as how websites identify the age of their visitors, rather than issue a broader decision concerning free speech rights online.

NEGATIVE

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday regarding a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to confirm the ages of their users. The case involves explicit material that could potentially impact Congress’s and states’ authority to control minors’ internet access.

Free Speech Coalition et al. v. . According to Paxton, a group of challengers will ask the justices to declare the Texas law unconstitutional because it violates the rights of Texas adults to free speech.

In court filings, they contend that Texas’s attempt to restrict minors’ access to sexual content online restricts adults’ freedom to view whatever content they choose online and that requiring verification information puts those adults at risk for fraud, identity theft, and other dangers.

The law was signed by Governor… Pornography websites must use identification such as a government-issued ID to prove their users’ identities, according to Greg Abbott’s 2023 law. Violations will result in a $10,000 fine per instance, or $250,000 if a minor is involved.

Because of a U.S. ruling, the law is currently in effect in the state. S. . Prominent pornographic websites like Pornhub and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit have declared they will no longer grant access in the state.

The justices’ treatment of the 5th Circuit’s ruling, which supported the Texas law by citing a 1960s case mandating that New York bookstores confirm the age of their patrons before offering adult content, will be a crucial factor in the case, according to Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who focuses on free speech issues.

The Fifth Circuit used that case to apply a more lenient test that ignored any potential chilling effect on adults’ access to sexual content on the internet. The challengers contend that presenting identification to a store clerk is essentially different from doing so online, which increases the risk of identity theft or stalking their online activities.

Volokh mentioned a more recent case known as Ashcroft v. A federal law that imposed criminal penalties on websites that permitted minors to access pornographic content was overturned by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Less restrictive measures, such as content-filtering software, would be constitutional in that case, according to the Supreme Court. “That ruling would imply that online age verification requirements are unconstitutional,” Volokh stated.

Texas has defended the law in court documents, claiming that requiring pornographic websites to confirm the users’ age can help prevent minors from unintentionally viewing explicit images and videos.

Texas has only targeted pornographic websites, permitted them to comply by utilizing standard age-verification technology, and has not levied criminal penalties. Any level of scrutiny is satisfied by such a small but significant law, according to Texas’ brief.

Sen. In a court filing with four other Republican senators and eighteen Republican members of the House, Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, highlighted these stakes and urged the justices to uphold the Texas law.

“The protection of America’s youth from the increasing commercialization of sex through electronic devices is a critical responsibility of Congress and state governments,” the brief stated.

According to the brief, the last 20 years have demonstrated the fallacy of the “optimistic assumption” that content-filtering software could shield children from pornography.

The lawmaker brief stated that keeping the Texas law in place “gives policymakers the breathing room they need to protect our nation’s children while preserving our First Amendment freedoms.”.

Additionally, the brief stated that it would allow for national legislation, such as a bill Lee introduced in Congress last year that would require age verification on any website that hosts content that is “harmful to minors.”.

While not necessarily siding with the law’s opponents, the Biden administration requested that the justices reverse the 5th Circuit’s ruling. The Biden administration claimed in its own brief that the lower court had applied the incorrect standard when assessing the law.

According to the Biden administration brief, the justices should return the case to the 5th Circuit, but “the Court should make clear that the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress and the States from adopting appropriately tailored measures to prevent children from accessing harmful sexual material on the Internet—potentially including age-verification requirements analogous to those that have long been applied to the distribution of such material in the physical world.”. “.”.

An ACLU staff lawyer stated during a press conference earlier this month that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case may have far-reaching implications beyond pornography. The petitioners in the case, who want to overturn the Texas law, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“This case is significant because it concerns the future of free speech online and how the government can handle speech it dislikes, and pornography is frequently the canary in the coal mine for free speech,” Vera Eidelman stated.

According to Eidelman, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the constitutionality of age restrictions may also have an effect on current state and congressional initiatives to limit children’s access to social media.

According to the challengers’ Supreme Court brief, the Texas law has significant gaps for social media websites and search engines, and it applies to any website that contains “salacious material,” not just porn.

The challengers argued that upholding the 5th Circuit’s low standard could pave the way for more extensive prohibitions on sexual content. The Supreme Court’s previous application of a higher standard “would not render states powerless to protect minors.”. All that would be needed would be a carefully crafted law to force them to do so. “.”.

According to Volokh, circumstances involving pornography and “obscene” material in free speech cases would, in his opinion, lessen the impact of the justices’ ruling in the Texas case.

According to Volokh, “any decision in this case is likely to be limited to porn.”. “Even if prohibitions on the dissemination of pornography to minors are upheld, they might not apply to other material,” such as the alleged harms that social media use causes to children.

Additionally, according to Volokh, the Supreme Court might decide on specific aspects of the Texas law, like how websites determine the age of their users, rather than rendering a more comprehensive ruling on online free speech.

The justices have recently rendered broad rulings that have altered administrative law, gun rights, and other matters, but “remaking the law in terms of free speech doesn’t seem to be a priority for this court,” according to Eric Chaffee, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. “.”.

But he noted that a number of conservative groups and lawmakers, including the members of Congress led by Lee, have voiced their opinions and could influence the court to rule differently.

“I believe the court will probably send the case back down to the 5th Circuit with instructions to apply a more exacting legal test that requires the state to justify any burdens it places on the rights of people effected by the law,” Chaffee said.

The question is whether there is a more limited approach to accomplishing this specific goal, but Chaffee stated that “the protection of children is a compelling state interest.”.

scroll to top