War on Texas law requiring ID to savor smut online heads to Supreme Court
(2024/07/03)
- Reference: 1719959951
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/07/02/texas_adult_content_id_law/
- Source link:
A Texas law requiring adults to show their ID to access online pornography will be heard by the US Supreme Court, setting up a potential domino effect that could undo - or reinforce - similar laws in 18 other states.
The appeal to SCOTUS was [1]filed in April by groups headed by the Free Speech Coalition, the trade association that represents the American skin-flick industry. The coalition's submission came after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals [2]ruled in March the age verification component of the Texas law could stand, while striking down the legislation's requirement for health warnings to be displayed with adult content on the grounds they were unconstitutionally compelled speech.
The Supreme Court today [3]announced [PDF] it would hear the case, Free Speech Coalition, et al v. Paxton, at a future date.
[4]
"Despite proponents' claims, online age verification is simply not the same as flashing an ID at a checkout counter," said coalition executive director Alison Boden. "The process is invasive and burdensome, with significant privacy risks for adult consumers.
[5]
[6]
"Sexual expression is the canary in the coal mine of free speech, and we look forward to defending the rights of all Americans to access the internet privately and free from surveillance," Boden added.
The legislation in question, Texas House Bill [7]1181 , was signed into law in June last year and requires any website with more than a third of its material deemed inappropriate to minors to verify that visitors are over the age of 18. Websites that refuse to comply can face fines of $10,000 per day, and a one-off hit of $250,000 if a minor accesses the site.
[8]
Ostensibly designed to keep X-rated content away from kids, the law drew immediate criticism from online privacy advocates and the adult industry, the latter of which challenged it as the ink dried on the statute books. A Texas judge [9]struck the law down in September, 2023, calling it a violation of free speech rights that was overly broad and vague.
"People will be particularly concerned about accessing controversial speech when the state government can log and track that access," Judge David Ezra wrote in his opinion. "By verifying information through government identification, the law will allow the government to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people's lives."
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton's team appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the lower court's decision. The Free Speech Coalition then immediately appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay of the age verification enforcement, which SCOTUS [10]denied later that month before deciding today to hear the case.
[11]US standards agency reports back on just how good age verification software is
[12]Tumblr says nudes are back on the menu – within reason
[13]Watchdog mulls online facial age-verification tech – for kids' parents
[14]Europe classifies three adult sites as worthy of its toughest internet regulations
The Texas AG's office hasn't responded to questions.
Mississippi's other online age verification law falls in court
A Mississippi law that would have required all websites to verify users were at least 18 or have parental consent to register accounts was also [15]blocked by a judge today.
That bill, which is separate from Mississippi's law that also requires age verification for accessing online porn, instead targets social media platforms in a bid to protect children from online bullying and other harms, and opponents have convinced a judge the law would limit the free speech and privacy of adult users, too.
NetChoice, a tech industry trade organization that also [16]recently scored a win before the Supreme Court in a battle over online content moderation rights, was also behind the Mississippi case.
"We're pleased the court sided with the First Amendment and stopped Mississippi's law from censoring online speech," [17]said NetChoice litigation center director Chris Marchese. "We look forward to seeing the law struck down permanently."
Texas is not the first US state to decide that adults need to hand over personal data for the privilege of accessing smut on the web - it was actually the [18]sixth state to enact such a law.
As has been the case in [19]other states with similar identity-requirement laws, smash-hit smash site PornHub has chosen to completely block access in Texas rather than comply with the rules and demand people's ID. The site is similarly offline to Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Virginia, and Utah, and will soon be inaccessible in Indiana, Kentucky, and Florida when similar legislation in those places take effect.
[20]
The Free Speech Coalition has challenged several of those laws, including in Indiana, where a judge last week [21]granted a stay to the FSC and its co-plaintiffs and stopped the legislation from going into effect.
PornHub has previously argued that such laws don't actually ultimately prevent minors from accessing online smut, and instead push them toward websites that lack safety measures.
EFF associate director of digital strategy Jason Kelly [22]previously argued that laws in Utah, Louisiana, and Texas, which bar adult websites from retaining personal info used to verify identities, don't include any guarantees that such sites will actually do so, casting further doubt on the ability of such laws to keep the identities of porno perusers safe.
If the Supreme Court sides with the Free Speech Coalition, the result could be the unraveling of those other laws, too. When that may be is still unknown, as SCOTUS hasn't scheduled a date for oral arguments in the case. The top court's next argument session begins in October. ®
Get our [23]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1122.html
[2] https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/
[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/070224zor_2co3.pdf
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZoTM4EwestGcSQBcUTXlnAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZoTM4EwestGcSQBcUTXlnAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZoTM4EwestGcSQBcUTXlnAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB1181
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZoTM4EwestGcSQBcUTXlnAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://apnews.com/article/pornography-age-verification-texas-unconstitutional-48af1b99434cdfddd12351f555aeab11
[10] https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a925.html
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/03/us_standards_agency_publishes_a/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/03/tumblr_says_nudes_are_back/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/21/age_verification_tech/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/21/europe_nsfw_vlops_sites/
[15] https://mississippitoday.org/2024/07/02/internet-age-law-blocked-injunction-verification-mississippi-legislature-free-speech-privacy/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/01/supreme_court_social_media/
[17] https://netchoice.org/district-court-halts-unconstitutional-law-failing-mississippians-and-their-families-in-netchoice-v-fitch/
[18] https://avpassociation.com/4271-2/
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/03/utah_pornhub_ban/
[20] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZoTM4EwestGcSQBcUTXlnAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[21] https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/blog/indiana-court-blocks-age-verification-law
[22] https://www.npr.org/2023/01/05/1146933317/louisiana-new-porn-law-government-id-restriction-privacy
[23] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
The appeal to SCOTUS was [1]filed in April by groups headed by the Free Speech Coalition, the trade association that represents the American skin-flick industry. The coalition's submission came after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals [2]ruled in March the age verification component of the Texas law could stand, while striking down the legislation's requirement for health warnings to be displayed with adult content on the grounds they were unconstitutionally compelled speech.
The Supreme Court today [3]announced [PDF] it would hear the case, Free Speech Coalition, et al v. Paxton, at a future date.
[4]
"Despite proponents' claims, online age verification is simply not the same as flashing an ID at a checkout counter," said coalition executive director Alison Boden. "The process is invasive and burdensome, with significant privacy risks for adult consumers.
[5]
[6]
"Sexual expression is the canary in the coal mine of free speech, and we look forward to defending the rights of all Americans to access the internet privately and free from surveillance," Boden added.
The legislation in question, Texas House Bill [7]1181 , was signed into law in June last year and requires any website with more than a third of its material deemed inappropriate to minors to verify that visitors are over the age of 18. Websites that refuse to comply can face fines of $10,000 per day, and a one-off hit of $250,000 if a minor accesses the site.
[8]
Ostensibly designed to keep X-rated content away from kids, the law drew immediate criticism from online privacy advocates and the adult industry, the latter of which challenged it as the ink dried on the statute books. A Texas judge [9]struck the law down in September, 2023, calling it a violation of free speech rights that was overly broad and vague.
"People will be particularly concerned about accessing controversial speech when the state government can log and track that access," Judge David Ezra wrote in his opinion. "By verifying information through government identification, the law will allow the government to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people's lives."
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton's team appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the lower court's decision. The Free Speech Coalition then immediately appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay of the age verification enforcement, which SCOTUS [10]denied later that month before deciding today to hear the case.
[11]US standards agency reports back on just how good age verification software is
[12]Tumblr says nudes are back on the menu – within reason
[13]Watchdog mulls online facial age-verification tech – for kids' parents
[14]Europe classifies three adult sites as worthy of its toughest internet regulations
The Texas AG's office hasn't responded to questions.
Mississippi's other online age verification law falls in court
A Mississippi law that would have required all websites to verify users were at least 18 or have parental consent to register accounts was also [15]blocked by a judge today.
That bill, which is separate from Mississippi's law that also requires age verification for accessing online porn, instead targets social media platforms in a bid to protect children from online bullying and other harms, and opponents have convinced a judge the law would limit the free speech and privacy of adult users, too.
NetChoice, a tech industry trade organization that also [16]recently scored a win before the Supreme Court in a battle over online content moderation rights, was also behind the Mississippi case.
"We're pleased the court sided with the First Amendment and stopped Mississippi's law from censoring online speech," [17]said NetChoice litigation center director Chris Marchese. "We look forward to seeing the law struck down permanently."
Texas is not the first US state to decide that adults need to hand over personal data for the privilege of accessing smut on the web - it was actually the [18]sixth state to enact such a law.
As has been the case in [19]other states with similar identity-requirement laws, smash-hit smash site PornHub has chosen to completely block access in Texas rather than comply with the rules and demand people's ID. The site is similarly offline to Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Virginia, and Utah, and will soon be inaccessible in Indiana, Kentucky, and Florida when similar legislation in those places take effect.
[20]
The Free Speech Coalition has challenged several of those laws, including in Indiana, where a judge last week [21]granted a stay to the FSC and its co-plaintiffs and stopped the legislation from going into effect.
PornHub has previously argued that such laws don't actually ultimately prevent minors from accessing online smut, and instead push them toward websites that lack safety measures.
EFF associate director of digital strategy Jason Kelly [22]previously argued that laws in Utah, Louisiana, and Texas, which bar adult websites from retaining personal info used to verify identities, don't include any guarantees that such sites will actually do so, casting further doubt on the ability of such laws to keep the identities of porno perusers safe.
If the Supreme Court sides with the Free Speech Coalition, the result could be the unraveling of those other laws, too. When that may be is still unknown, as SCOTUS hasn't scheduled a date for oral arguments in the case. The top court's next argument session begins in October. ®
Get our [23]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1122.html
[2] https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/
[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/070224zor_2co3.pdf
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZoTM4EwestGcSQBcUTXlnAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZoTM4EwestGcSQBcUTXlnAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZoTM4EwestGcSQBcUTXlnAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB1181
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZoTM4EwestGcSQBcUTXlnAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://apnews.com/article/pornography-age-verification-texas-unconstitutional-48af1b99434cdfddd12351f555aeab11
[10] https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a925.html
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/03/us_standards_agency_publishes_a/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/03/tumblr_says_nudes_are_back/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/21/age_verification_tech/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/21/europe_nsfw_vlops_sites/
[15] https://mississippitoday.org/2024/07/02/internet-age-law-blocked-injunction-verification-mississippi-legislature-free-speech-privacy/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/01/supreme_court_social_media/
[17] https://netchoice.org/district-court-halts-unconstitutional-law-failing-mississippians-and-their-families-in-netchoice-v-fitch/
[18] https://avpassociation.com/4271-2/
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/03/utah_pornhub_ban/
[20] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZoTM4EwestGcSQBcUTXlnAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[21] https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/blog/indiana-court-blocks-age-verification-law
[22] https://www.npr.org/2023/01/05/1146933317/louisiana-new-porn-law-government-id-restriction-privacy
[23] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Sora2566
I know there's an attitude prevalent in government - well, more of a desperate hope - that technology can fix any problem.
This is a problem that tech cannot solve. The only solution to this one is *actually good parenting*. Pretending otherwise is just pandering.
Anonymous Coward
The nice part of this is, they are validating what state a user is in by IP number blocks. So even when your state hasn't passed any law, if your ISP's IP blocks are used across state lines you can still be hit with the age verification. I'm not sure how your phone number or credit card verifies your age, but they are asking for those. Or you can give some unknown 3rd party an image of your driver's license.
It's a good time to be in the VPN business.
My prediction is that if the laws are allowed to stand, they will be expanded to other things a vocal minority finds morally objectionable. The 3rd party verifiers will get hacked, but won't be held responsible, and either criminals will have a goldmine of info for identity fraud or government agencies will somehow 'acquire' activity logs.
John69
"you can give some unknown 3rd party an image of your driver's license" You could give them an image of someone else's driver's license. The parler hack provides plenty.
A paradox
Anonymous Coward
Wankers pass a law to stop people wanking.
When does the full blown (eh?) American Taliban regime start?
Trust no one
Don’t trust the government. Don’t trust porn sites.
Definitely want to keep this material out of reach of children but neither have any credibility. That’s my “free” speech.