Supreme Court Ruling Restarts Porn Age Verification Fight

Supreme Court Ruling Restarts Porn Age Verification Fight

By Jim Saunders, The News Service of Florida

TALLAHASSEE — In a ruling that has implications for a battle over a similar Florida law, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring age verification for access to websites with pornographic content.

The court, in a 6-3 decision, said the Texas law does not violate First Amendment rights and that at least 21 other states — including Florida — “have imposed materially similar age-verification requirements to access sexual material that is harmful to minors online.”

As the Supreme Court weighed the Texas case in January, Tallahassee-based U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a stay of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Florida law. Walker on Friday quickly lifted the stay and gave directions to lawyers, including about filing “supplemental arguments now that the Supreme Court has provided additional guidance as to the applicable level of scrutiny that applies to plaintiffs’ claims.”

Friday’s majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, said age-verification laws “fall within states’ authority to shield children from sexually explicit content.”

“The First Amendment leaves undisturbed states’ traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective,” said the opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. “That power necessarily includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech. It follows that no person — adult or child — has a First Amendment right to access speech that is obscene to minors without first submitting proof of age.”

But Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the age-verification requirement would burden the First Amendment rights of adults who want to view websites with pornographic content.

“Texas can of course take measures to prevent minors from viewing obscene-for-children speech,” Kagan wrote. “But if a scheme other than H. B. 1181 (the Texas law) can just as well accomplish that objective and better protect adults’ First Amendment freedoms, then Texas should have to adopt it (or at least demonstrate some good reason not to). A state may not care much about safeguarding adults’ access to sexually explicit speech; a state may even prefer to curtail those materials for everyone. Many reasonable people, after all, view the speech at issue here as ugly and harmful for any audience. But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a state cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children.”

Florida lawmakers passed the age-verification requirements in 2024 as part of a broader bill (HB 3) that also seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening social-media accounts on some platforms. The social-media part of the bill drew a separate constitutional challenge, with Walker this month issuing a preliminary injunction to block it on First Amendment grounds.

The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry group, and other plaintiffs filed the lawsuit challenging the pornography-related part of the law. The Free Speech Coalition also has been a plaintiff in the Texas case.

The Florida lawsuit centers on part of the law that applies to any business that “knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on a website or application, if the website or application contains a substantial portion of material harmful to minors.” It defines “substantial portion” as more than 33.3 percent of total material on a website or app.

In such situations, the law requires businesses to use methods to “verify that the age of a person attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older and prevent access to the material by a person younger than 18 years of age.”

The lawsuit raises objections about how the law would apply to minors and adults, including saying it “demands that, as a condition of access to constitutionally protected content, an adult must provide a digital proof of identity to adult content websites that are doubtlessly capable of tracking specific searches and views of some of the most sensitive, personal, and private contents a human being might search for.”

The lawsuit also alleges that the law does not properly differentiate between older minors and younger children.

In addition to alleging violations of First Amendment rights, the lawsuit contends that the law violates due-process rights, the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause and what is known as the Supremacy Clause — issues that were not addressed in Friday’s opinion about the Texas law.

8 Responses to "Supreme Court Ruling Restarts Porn Age Verification Fight"

  1. Identifying someone as an anarchist isn’t name calling. Crying foul when none has happened is telling, however.

    You don’t think there should be laws governing age restricted access to adult materials. You think it should be left entirely to citizens. Families, in particular.

    While I agree it is a parents’ responsibility to control what enters the home, the internet doesn’t enter the home, we enter the internet marketplace and the marketplace has government mandated controls. These controls are age restricted access to adult materials.

    If you sincerely believe the government should not or cannot restrict access to adult materials, then you should also logically believe that the government should not restrict access to tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs. To believe in such is to believe in the rule of anarchy, the absence of laws.

  2. Commonsense: Being called an Anarchist isn’t necessarily a pejorative ..hardly name calling.
    Think: The use of child safety seats . Yes. Government intrusion. But we allow this law, because it’s common sense. Now use this logic again, parents try to protect their children from myriad dangers . And sometimes laws and common sense work. Reread child safety seats.

  3. Mr. Worrel,

    If you have to revert to name-calling, instead of displaying your ability to state a logical rationale for your beliefs, it’s definitely a sign of your very limited mental capacity.

    Perhaps it’s best to end this discussion before you start calling me inappropriate names that “Tallahassee Reports” rightfully does not allow on this platform.

    Goodbye.

  4. Mr. Worrel,

    YOUR ARE RIGHT! It IS “the parents’ responsibility to keep children from purchasing tobacco, vapes, THC products, oh yeah, and adult materials at X-Mart.” Along with any other products, activities or exposure to various things that can physically hurt them (guns) or hanging around with gangs (MS-13) or questionable websites (sexual predators).

    If you’re a parent and chose to bring kids into our society, why would you expect some government to protect YOUR children from the evils of modern society? Do you think they could do a better job than you? Do our governments love and care about YOUR children as much or more than you do?

    Perhaps you may think that because you pay taxes the government should protect YOUR kids for you. Best of luck with that thinking. I pray for the safety of your kids while you sit back and wait for the government to protect them.

  5. Common, you’re wrong. Otherwise, it would solely be the parents’ responsibility to keep children from purchasing tobacco, vapes, THC products, oh yeah, and adult materials at X-Mart. We have an embargo in place against Cuba. We don’t allow certain items to be freely imported, or exported, into or out of our country. You can’t rent a car until you’re 25. The government regulates commerce in a multitude of ways.

    Age restricting and forcing businesses to enforce age restrictions is established by legal precedent.

    I’m not sure why you are so intent on making adult materials easily available to children…

  6. It’s the parent’s responsibility to keep their kids away from porn sites and age inappropriate material, not the job of any government be it federal, state or local.

  7. “the lawsuit contends that the law violates due-process rights” …………………….. HOW? You have to Prove your Age to buy Cigarettes, Beer, a Porn Magazine and even Spray Paint, why should it be different to Log On to Porn Sites?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.