The Supreme Court is set to hear the case of Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Paxton, which challenges a Texas law requiring pornography websites to verify the ages of their visitors. The law, signed by Governor Greg Abbott in 2023, requires pornography websites to verify the identity of their users through the use of documentation like a government-issued ID, and imposes a $10,000 fine per violation or $250,000 fine if it involves a minor.
The challengers, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that the law infringes on the free speech rights of adults in Texas and exposes them to potential identity theft, fraud, and other risks. They also argue that the law’s approach is overly broad, as it could potentially sweep in any website that contains “salacious material,” not just pornography.
The law is currently in effect in the state, and major pornography websites such as Pornhub have announced they will no longer provide access in Texas. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the law, relying on a 1960s case that required New York bookstores to verify the age of their customers before selling adult material.
Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor specializing in free speech issues, notes that the 5th Circuit’s decision applied a more lenient test that didn’t consider any potential chilling effect on adults’ access to sexual material online. He argues that the court should apply a more recent case, Ashcroft v. ACLU, which found that a more restrictive test would be constitutional.
The case has drawn attention from lawmakers and legal experts, with some supporting the law as a means to protect minors from accessing harmful content online. Senator Mike Lee, along with four other Republican senators and 18 Republican House members, filed a brief arguing that the law is necessary to prevent the commercialization of sex and the exploitation of children.
The Biden administration, on the other hand, asked the justices to overturn the 5th Circuit’s decision, but not necessarily rule in favor of the challengers. They argue that the lower court used the wrong test in evaluating the law and urge the court to send the case back to the 5th Circuit with instructions to apply a more exacting legal test.
The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for the regulation of online content and the protection of minors’ access to harmful materials. As the Supreme Court weighs the law, they will need to balance the competing interests of free speech, minor protection, and government regulation.
