The battle to shield children from the harmful impacts of online pornography has taken a national stage. The U.S. Supreme Court recently deliberated on Texas’s age-verification law, H.B. 1181, which mandates that pornographic websites confirm users’ ages before granting access. The case presents profound implications for child safety and First Amendment jurisprudence, all while evoking memories of California’s failed attempt to pass a similar measure last year.
The Case Before the Supreme Court
The Texas law has endured a contentious legal journey. Initially blocked by a district court in Austin for likely violating the First Amendment, the law was reinstated by the 5th Circuit Court, which applied rational-basis review—a less rigorous standard than the strict scrutiny used in earlier precedents like Ashcroft v. ACLU. During oral arguments, several US Supreme Court justices debated the impact of technological advancements on the legal framework governing these cases.
According the an analysis published by the SCOTUSblog, Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged the evolving nature of the internet, observing access to pornography has “exploded.” Porn is easier for teenagers to access, and the type of porn available to youth is more graphic. Justice Clarence Thomas echoed this sentiment, pointing out that the court decided Ashcroft in a “world of dial-up Internet,” emphasizing, “You would admit that we’re in an entirely different world” now.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, drawing from personal experience as a parent, highlighted the difficulty of relying on content-filtering software alone: “I can say from personal experience,” she explained, that content-filtering software for children “is difficult to keep up with.” Justice Samuel Alito added, “There’s a huge volume of evidence that filtering doesn’t work,” questioning whether this justified the widespread adoption of age-verification laws by 19 states.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised a counterpoint, noting that technological advancements “cut[] both ways,” potentially increasing the privacy burdens on adults seeking access to legal content. She emphasized that privacy concerns must be balanced with the rights of minors.
(Read the transcript of the hearing for Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton)
California’s Missed Opportunity
California faced its own legislative battle over online child safety last year. Assemblyman Juan Alanis’s AB 3080 proposed similar protections, requiring age-verification mechanisms for pornographic sites. Despite unanimous bipartisan support in the Assembly, the bill ran into some trouble in the Senate Judiciary Committee when the author was required to add amendments that gutted the bill’s effectiveness. Then, when the bill reached the Senate Appropriations Committee, it was killed.
California Family Council, who had been instrumental in getting the bill introduced, was very disappointed. CFC Vice President Greg Burt denounced the influence of well-funded lobbying groups that oppose such restrictions under the guise of protecting privacy. Burt observed, “The billions in profits the pornography industry enjoys have turned them cold to the immense harm they’re inflicting on our kids and society as a whole.” This case highlighted Sacramento’s susceptibility to external pressures, leaving California families without the protections they urgently need.
A Cultural Crossroads
The Supreme Court hearing comes as society grapples with new norms for children’s exposure to explicit content. According to research, the average age of first exposure to pornography has dropped to just 12 years old. The ubiquity of smartphones compounds this issue, making online safeguards essential. Chief Justice Roberts’s observation about the “explosion” of pornographic content reflects the urgent need for updated laws to address the unique challenges of the digital age.
The Road Ahead
A decision on the Texas case is expected by summer, and its outcome could set a precedent for similar laws nationwide. Regardless of the verdict, the conversation about protecting children in the digital age is far from over. Parents, advocacy groups, and lawmakers must continue to champion measures that prioritize the innocence and well-being of the next generation over corporate profits.
