{"id":2389982,"date":"2025-01-14T06:04:02","date_gmt":"2025-01-14T11:04:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-review-pornography-age-verification-requirements-washington-examiner\/"},"modified":"2025-01-14T06:08:01","modified_gmt":"2025-01-14T11:08:01","slug":"supreme-court-to-review-pornography-age-verification-requirements-washington-examiner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-review-pornography-age-verification-requirements-washington-examiner\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to review pornography age verification requirements &#8211; Washington Examiner"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fsupreme-court-to-review-pornography-age-verification-requirements-washington-examiner%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2389982&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The Supreme\u2063 Court is set to hear a significant case \u200cregarding <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/parents-dont-let-the-chinese-communist-party-protect-kids-from-screens-more-than-you-do\/\" title=\"Parents, Don\u2019t Let The Chinese Communist Party Protect Kids From Screens More Than You Do\">age verification laws<\/a> \u200bfor accessing online pornography,scheduled for arguments\u200c on Wednesday. At the heart of the case is Texas&#8217;s House Bill 1181, which mandates that websites providing sexually explicit\u2064 content implement &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/pornhub-blocks-access-in-utah-after-state-passes-new-age-verification-law\/\" title=\"Pornhub Blocks Access in Utah After State Passes New Age Verification Law\">reasonable age verification methods<\/a>&#8221; to ensure users\u2064 are at least 18 years old. These methods could include submitting digital IDs \u200bor using\u200b third-party verification systems.\u200b Additionally,\u2064 the law requires websites to display \u2063warnings indicating \u2063the possibly harmful\u2063 nature\u200b of\u2063 their content. \u200b <\/p>\n<p>The outcome of this \u2063case, known as free\u200b Speech Coalition v. Paxton, may influence similar laws adopted by over a \u200bdozen states, potentially leading to broader acceptance of such measures nationwide. The supreme Court&#8217;s decision could\u2063 rely heavily \u200con its previous ruling in \u200cReno v. \u200bAmerican Civil Liberties Union (1997), \u200cwhich determined that the government cannot broadly suppress adult-directed speech to protect minors when less restrictive alternatives exist. \u2064 <\/p>\n<p>A <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-immunity-could-complicate-trumps-hush-money-conviction-washington-examiner\/\" title=\"How immunity could complicate Trump\u2019s hush money conviction - Washington Examiner\">federal judge previously ruled<\/a> against texas&#8217;s law, citing concerns about privacy and governmental overreach. However, the 5th U.S. Circuit \u200cCourt of Appeals upheld \u2064it, arguing the state has a\u200d legitimate interest in protecting children from\u2063 explicit content.\u2062 With a notably different Supreme Court today, comprised largely of Republican-appointed justices, the case&#8217;s outcome may hinge on questions \u200dabout the legitimacy of requiring ID for online pornography in comparison to other age-restricted materials.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-header-search-button-mob dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search\" aria-labelledby=\"td-header-search-button\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search-inner\">\n<form method=\"get\" class=\"tdb-search-form\" action=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\"><\/form>\n<div class=\"tdb-aj-search\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/#\" role=\"button\" aria-label=\"Search\" class=\"tdb-head-search-btn dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<h1 class=\"tdb-title-text\">Supreme Court to review pornography age verification requirements<\/h1>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-title-line\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div id=\"Brid_1934520\" class=\"tpd-featured-video bridtv\"><\/div>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Supreme Court<\/a> will hear arguments on Wednesday in&nbsp;a major <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/3067095\/supreme-court-to-weigh-porn-site-age-verification-law\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">case<\/a> that could set a precedent for the legality of age verification laws for accessing online <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/pornography\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">pornography<\/a>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"article-paywall\">\n<p>At issue is <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/texas\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Texas<\/a>&rsquo;s 2023 law, House Bill 1181, which <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\">requires websites offering sexually explicit material<\/a> to implement &ldquo;reasonable age verification methods&rdquo; to confirm users are at least 18. These methods can include submitting digital identification or using third-party verification systems. The law also mandates that websites display warnings labeling their content harmful to health.<\/p>\n<p>With more than a dozen states enacting similar laws, the outcome of the case,  <em>Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton<\/em>, could pave the way for even broader adoption of such measures across the country.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">A Test of Precedent<\/h2>\n<p>The case could hinge on the Supreme Court&rsquo;s 1997 decision in&nbsp;<em>Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union<\/em>, which held that the government cannot protect minors by broadly suppressing speech directed at adults when &ldquo;less restrictive alternatives&rdquo; are available.<\/p>\n<p>In&nbsp;<em>Reno<\/em>, the justices unanimously struck down online content restrictions, ruling that such laws must meet strict scrutiny &mdash; the highest level of judicial review. Under this standard, the government must prove that a law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest without overly restricting lawful speech.<\/p>\n<p>A federal judge applied this precedent in 2023 to strike down Texas&rsquo;s age verification law, arguing it would &ldquo;allow the government to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people&rsquo;s lives.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>However, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the law under a lower standard, rational basis review, and upheld it, finding that Texas had a legitimate interest in protecting children from explicit material.<\/p>\n<p>The current Supreme Court is much different from the bench that was in place in 1997, and at least five justices on the current bench voted to overturn <em>Roe v. Wade <\/em>three years ago and allow states to set gestational limits on abortion.<\/p>\n<p>The question will be left up to the majority of Republican-appointed justices, who could question why an ID requirement for viewing pornographic content is any different than showing an ID to purchase a pornographic magazine at the store.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Supporters of the Law: Protecting Children&rsquo;s Welfare<\/h2>\n<p>Texas contends the law addresses a public health crisis stemming from children&rsquo;s easy access to pornography. The state has argued that such exposure harms minors&rsquo; emotional and sexual development, citing studies linking pornography consumption to increased risk behaviors and long-term psychological impacts.<\/p>\n<p>The American Principles Project, a nonprofit organization advocating child protection, will rally outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday to support the law.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;Smartphones and other technological advances have fundamentally transformed the pornography industry &mdash; threatening the well-being of children like never before,&rdquo; APP says in a statement on its webpage. &ldquo;According to one report, the average child will encounter pornography before their 12th birthday. This is unconscionable, and it&rsquo;s also technically illegal.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Texas has dismissed concerns about adult access, asserting that any restrictions are minimal and do not constitute a significant burden under the First Amendment. <\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;A restriction on videos of &lsquo;teen bondage gangbang[s]&rsquo; does not invade the area of freedom of expression constitutionally secured to minors,&rdquo; Texas <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/23\/23-1122\/331956\/20241115140329092_23-1122%20Brief%20for%20Respondent.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">argued<\/a> in its brief.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Critics of the Law: Chilling Free Speech<\/h2>\n<p>Opponents of the law argue that it imposes unconstitutional burdens on adult access to lawful material and jeopardizes user privacy.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;Texas&rsquo; age verification law robs internet users of anonymity, exposes them to privacy and security risks, and blocks some adults entirely from accessing sexual content that&rsquo;s protected under the First Amendment,&rdquo; Lisa Femia, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a statement to the&nbsp;<em>Washington Examiner<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Other opponents of the law have highlighted that there are less restrictive remedies that can be applied to children&rsquo;s devices, such as built-in parental controls, to protect them from viewing online pornography.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>CLICK HERE&nbsp;TO&nbsp;READ&nbsp;MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p>In September, the Cato Institute filed an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cato.org\/sites\/cato.org\/files\/2024-10\/FSC%20v.%20Paxton_Final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">amicus brief<\/a> at the Supreme Court in favor of reversing the 5th Circuit decision, writing in part that parents can take measures in their own lives &ldquo;such as content filtering and device-level restrictions&rdquo; for their children&rsquo;s technological devices.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;These methods place power in the hands of parents and avoid putting a serious chill on adults&rsquo; access to lawful content,&rdquo; reads a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cato.org\/legal-briefs\/free-speech-coalition-v-paxton\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">blog post<\/a> about the brief.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <script data-cfasync=\"false\" src=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/cdn-cgi\/scripts\/5c5dd728\/cloudflare-static\/email-decode.min.js\"><\/script><script>!function(){var g=window;g.googletag=g.googletag||{},g.googletag.cmd=g.googletag.cmd||[],g.googletag.cmd.push(function(){g.googletag.pubads().setTargeting(\"has-featured-video\",\"true\")})}();<\/script><script>var _bp=_bp||[];_bp.push({\"div\":\"Brid_1934520\",\"obj\":{\"id\":\"27789\",\"width\":\"1280\",\"height\":\"720\",\"stickyDirection\":\"below\",\"video\":\"1934520\"}});<\/script><script defer src=\"https:\/\/services.brid.tv\/player\/build\/brid.min.js\"><\/script><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court to examine age verification for online porn<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2389983,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/AP24121581982162-1024x683.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[33666,9963,32275],"class_list":["post-2389982","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-age-verification","tag-pornography","tag-supreme-court"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/AP24121581982162-1024x683.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2389982","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2633"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2389982"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2389982\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2389986,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2389982\/revisions\/2389986"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2389983"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2389982"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2389982"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2389982"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}