The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Texas can require porn sites to verify age before accessing the site.
“Age-verification laws like H. B. 1181 fall within States’ authority to shield children from sexually explicit content,” stated Justice Clarence Thomas. “The First Amendment leaves undisturbed States’ traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective.”
Honestly, this case illustrates just how out of hand lawsuits have become, as it should not have even reached the Supreme Court.
HB 1181 requires the user to “comply with a commercial age verification system” using a “government-issued identification” or “a commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data.”
At least 21 other states have implemented a similar law to protect minors from pornography.
The petitioners claimed the law violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
“History, tradition, and precedent recognize that States have two distinct powers to address obscenity: They may proscribe outright speech that is obscene to the public at large, and they may prevent children from accessing speech that is obscene to children,” wrote Thomas.
I mean, the law is not banning porn sites or telling them what they can or cannot publish on the websites.
“A State may not prohibit adults from accessing content that is obscene only to minors,” noted Thomas. “But, it may enact laws to prevent minors from accessing such content.”
Thomas pointed out the many laws at the state and federal level that require proof of age:
I have eight tattoos. I go to the same place and have the same tattoo artist each time. I still have to show my license every single time.
Thomas reminded everyone:
Obscenity is no exception to the widespread practice of requiring proof of age to exercise age-restricted rights. The New York statute upheld in Ginsberg required age verification: It permitted a seller who sold sexual material to a minor to raise “‘honest mistake’” as to age as an affirmative defense, but only if the seller had made “‘a reasonable bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of [the] minor.’” 390 U. S., at 644. Most States to this day also require age verification for in-person purchases of sexual material. And, petitioners concede that an in-person age verification requirement is a “traditional sort of law” that is “almost surely” constitutional. Tr. of Oral Arg. 17.
“H. B. 1181 thus falls within Texas’s traditional power to protect minors from speech that is obscene from their perspective,” added Thomas. “Because H. B. 1181 simply requires proof of age to access content that is obscene to minors, it does not directly regulate the protected speech of adults.”
[Featured image via YouTube]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY