Supreme Court Seems Ready to Back Texas Law Limiting Access to Pornography

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: New York Times

Supreme Court Seems Ready to Back Texas Law Limiting Access to Pornography
The law, meant to shield minors from sexual materials on the internet by requiring adults to prove they are 18, was challenged on First Amendment grounds.

By Adam Liptak
Reporting from Washington
Jan. 15, 2025
Updated 3:51 p.m. ET

Several members of the Supreme Court's conservative majority seemed deeply skeptical of a challenge to a Texas law that seeks to limit minors' access to pornography, peppering a lawyer for the challengers with exceptionally hostile questions. ... The lawyer, Derek L. Shaffer, said the law violated the First Amendment by requiring age verification measures like the submission of government-issued IDs that placed an unconstitutional burden on adults seeking to view sexually explicit materials. He said parents could protect their children by using content-filtering software.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was incredulous. "Do you know a lot of parents who are more tech savvy than their 15-year-old children?" He added that "there's a huge volume of evidence that filtering doesn't work." ... Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has seven children, said "kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones, computers." ... She added, "Content filtering for all those different devices, I can say from personal experience, is difficult to keep up with."

Much of the argument concerned whether the appeals court had erred in using a relaxed form of judicial scrutiny to block the law. Several justices indicated that a more demanding standard applied even as they suggested that the Texas law satisfied it.

That could set the stage for a ruling giving the challengers a short-term victory by returning the case to an appeals court for application of the stricter standard. But there was little doubt that the law would in the end be upheld. ... Indeed, several justices expressly asked questions about how the Supreme Court could vacate the decision below without blocking the law while the appeals court took a fresh look at its constitutionality under the correct standard.

{snip}

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak
https://www.nytimes.com/by/adam-liptak

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/15/us/supreme-court-texas-law-porn.html

---

Hat tip, Joe.My.God.

https://www.joemygod.com/2025/01/scotus-likely-to-uphold-texass-porn-age-check-law/

SCOTUS Likely To Uphold Texas's Porn Age-Check Law
January 15, 2025

[Initech]

1. Well... RIP 1st amendment. 1789 - 2025. You will be missed.

Fuck MAGA. No circle of hell is good enough for this abomination.

[ck4829]

2. Project 2025: Where it will be easier to get a gun for a mass shooting than getting onto a porn site

[TommyT139]

11. With corollary:

You'll be able to buy a gun with cash, no questions asked -- but viewing adult videos will leave a data trail that gets added to the pile of surveillance economy fodder of our personal lives.

[andy_smalls]

18. go back to vhs

i don't agree with a "porn ban" but can't you buy porn with cash, no questions asked, as well? like we did in the old days. There is a Lion's Den every other exit all through the midwest.

[MichMan]

31. We have a 2nd Amendment, but minors are not permitted to buy guns.

Anyone purchasing a firearm would need to show ID to show they are above 18. Seems similar to me.

[ck4829]

35. Similar enough to cause Uvalde cops to have panic attacks and pee themselves about it?

[Shipwack]

3. Get your VPN before they make them illegal. nt

[JoseBalow]

6. Good advice

Username checks out

[msongs]

4. tobacco and alcohol are restricted, voting age is restricted, driving is restricted, age of consent is

is restricted.....and porn is absolutely free online for anybody ANY age who takes a few seconds to find it.

[Frank D. Lincoln]

5. It's going to open up a Pandora's box.

Project 2025 (which has a goal to outlaw porn):

Step 1: Nationalize age restriction to porn.

Step 2: Outlaw porn.

Step 3A: Criminalize the production of porn (possibly even private sexually explicit pictures taken by lovers--a very common practice).

Step 3B: (Possibly) criminalize the possession of porn.

Step 4: Invade the privacy of adult U.S. citizens to enforce the porn ban (including adults who supplied their government ID to view porn online).

Step 5: Arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate adults in violation of the porn ban.

Step 6: Force the adults mentioned in Step 5 to register as sex offenders.

Step 7: Redefine the word "porn" to mean anything conservatives and/or Christian nationalists want it to mean.

Step 8: Even many R-rated mainstream Hollywood movies, books/literature previously not considered to be pornographic, etc., will be deemed to be "porn" if conservatives and/or Christian nationalists want to ban it.

I think the way things currently are is a lot better than where Republicans are aiming to take us.

Long before the Internet (I mean for decades), under-aged people have found ways to view porn (for example, finding and looking at their daddy's "stash," etc.). When that happens, it's not the end of the world. And, it's definitely a better outcome than the government banning porn and criminalizing people associated with it.

Through many years of legal precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that porn is protected by the 1st Amendment. Whereas, this SCOTUS, as we all know, doesn't give a damn about legal precedent or the Constitution when they have a conservative agenda to push (in this case, Christian nationalism).

[Mosby]

7. Courts dont make decisions based on fantasy pandoras boxes.

And the fact that they can still get past safeguards is irrelevant. People cheat on taxes, should we get rid of them? See how stupid that sounds?

[Frank D. Lincoln]

8. What an assinine post.

Reacting to a metaphor as if that's the foundation of my argument.

The point of my post is that outlawing porn is one of the things mentioned in Project 2025. Therefore it can reasonably be assumed that that's one of the things they're going to be implementing and that age verification is setting the stage for it. This is even more likely because of their well-known Christian nationalist agenda. Lastly, your flawed argument assumes that these are normal times. Apparently you haven't noticed that we're about to shift from a democracy to an autocracy. If there's something that they really want to do, then they're not going to be stopped by the courts.

I don't mind a civil discussion and a differing opinion.

What I won't put up with is rudeness.

Therefore I'm placing you on permanent full ignore.

Goodbye.

[ck4829]

36. Didn't we also have a SCOTUS justice (Alito) cite a guy who believed in spectral evidence?

Sounds to me like the Pandora's Box has already been opened if you ask me.

[MichMan]

32. We have a 2nd Amendment, yet you have to be 18 or older to buy a gun.

How is that any different?

[angrychair]

9. This law is abhorrent invasion of privacy

It requires people to produce state issued identification, thereby giving their name, address and physical traits to a porn company. Not to mention the possibility that the state could force the poen company to give up the Identities of everyone trying to access the website.

What imagine they will do is just block all access from Texas like Pornhub does with Florida.

[Prairie Gates]

10. OK

[ArizonaLib]

12. How about protecting kids from school shootings?

Shouldn't life and death be a priority?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. THIS!! ☝️

[AltairIV]

13. Perhaps....

we should use this as an opportunity and go after white supremacy, nazi followers, racist sites as these are far more dangerous than porn. Their sole purpose is to inspire hate and advocate for the use of violence.

[Deminpenn]

14. Notice the silence from Clarence Thomas?

nt

[mahatmakanejeeves]

15. No, I did not. He asked several questions.

Here's the transcript.

FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC., )
ET AL., )
Petitioners, )
v. ) No. 23-1122
KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL )
OF TEXAS, )
Respondent.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1122_4f15.pdf

And good morning.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. Supreme Court divided on Texas age-verification law for porn sites

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS
Supreme Court divided on Texas age-verification law for porn sites

By Amy Howe
on Jan 15, 2025 at 3:05 pm

{snip}

A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July.

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.

Posted in Featured, Merits Cases

Cases: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Supreme Court divided on Texas age-verification law for porn sites, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 15, 2025, 3:05 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-divided-on-texas-age-verification-law-for-porn-sites/

[valleyrogue]

17. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see it all gone, not just for minors.

It is a truly sick society that sees exploitation of women and girls to be raped on camera (since money does not and never will equal consent) "free speech" and "harmless fun." It is a form of prostitution, a type of human rights abuse. Providing women and girls to be used as basically masturbatory tools for men isn't "freedom," isn't "empowering," isn't anything but the worst type of human rights abuse.

Women, especially younger women, are turning away from men in large part because said men are psychologically damaged from using porn. They are literally scared to death to have anything to do with them because men, even boys as young as 11 years of age, are considered threats to their lives and safety.

Not that men as a group care. They have managed to compartmentalize this issue and think it is okay. They think sex is a "right," which it is NOT.

[TommyT139]

20. That's already illegal.

What you are proposing is outlawing "speech" (creative content) that you find distasteful.

Also...you know many women enjoy (and produce, recreationally or professionally) porn too, right?

And more also -- the world doesn't just consist of straight people.

[Scrivener7]

21. But it's a fact seldom discussed here that women, girls and boys

are routinely exploited in the porn industry, sometimes in the worst ways imaginable and the perpetrators of that exploitation are almost never prosecuted.

[TommyT139]

22. That's true

That's true, yet limiting the free speech depiction of consensual activities would do nothing to address that. What is more likely is that driving all porn "underground" would make addressing illegal activities more difficult. Let limited enforcement resources be focused on the real problem, not stretched even more thinly.

In the meantime, the conservatives and their cats who would be empowered to define what counts as "pornography" would include a lot more content into that category. They've already shown how eager they are to do this in Project 2025 (see page 5!). Discussions of any other sexual orientation than straight are declared to be pornographic, along with the very existence of trans and non-binary people.

[Scrivener7]

23. I don't know what the answer is, but the victims of the exploitation are real and there are a lot of them.

And it's a point that always gets lost in the discussion of porn and free speech.

The exploited people are entitled to freedoms too, and some have freedoms a lot more fundamental than speech taken from them.

Also, and again, I'm not advocating the outlawing of porn by any means, but a good study came out a while ago that showed that where prostitution is legalized, it actually results in an INCREASE in trafficking. I think that might tell us things about the porn industry too. It's another fact we need to deal with if we are to call ourselves humane, but we probably never will deal with it.

[TommyT139]

24. Of course, prostitution and porn are very different

So I wouldn't think the data translates. Regardless, we can agree that this is a complex problem.

[Scrivener7]

25. But they aren't. There is a lot of crossover.

[TommyT139]

26. You and I live in different worlds.

If you're supporting the rethugs definition of porn, then you are supporting people like me going to jail.

And if the rethugs cared about trafficking, and stopping child molestation, the Southern Baptists would have been dealt with, along with the Roman Catholic dioceses that protected molester priests...and Matt Gaetz would be in jail.

[Scrivener7]

27. Well, clearly I'm not supporting that, and clearly they don't care about it. But we should.

[travelingthrulife]

19. I like it that MAGA is getting this thrown into their faces right off the bat.

Add that to the Tech Bros barging in to take over the Presidency...

[DonCoquixote]

29. theremare time I am temtped

to let Texas float off, but I remember this was the same state that mad molly Ivins and Kris kristofferson

[JI7]

30. This will affect Trump's base the most

[prodigitalson]

33. time to buy stock in VPNs

any suggestions?

I'll give half of any gains to the aclu

[Tbear]

34. Well here comes another hit to the economy.

That’s a joke and pun all in one.