The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld a Texas law that limits online access to “sexually explicit” materials.
Although the ruling specifically applies to Texas, it has implications for other states that have adopted similar “age ID” verification procedures for online adult sites. Critics charge the Texas law is the most severe of these.
The federal high court upheld a Texas law mandating restrictions on access to websites in which “more than one-third” of their content “is sexual material harmful to minors.” Similar to the recently proposed Interstate Obscenity Definition Act, the law defines this content as anything that:
- “Is designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest”
- Describes, displays or depicts “in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors” various sex acts and portions of the human anatomy, including depictions of “sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, (and) excretory functions”
- “Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors”
Arguments made by free speech advocates in the case, Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Paxton, debated the law’s legitimacy. Opponents noted that, although the advertised intention of the law is to protect children from accessing pornography, the definition of “sexually explicit content” is vague.
And while lawmakers insist they have focused only on targeting pornographic websites, critics say this vague definition opens the door for scrutiny against online content that is not widely considered pornography but technically meets this definition.
This could include comprehensive sexual education content that includes graphics or descriptions of different types of sexual intercourse, or content displaying LGBTQ bodies and relationships. Essentially, anything Texas lawmakers might define as “prurient” (immodest), or lacking in “literary, artistic, political or scientific value” could be considered harmful to minors.
Critics also raised concerns about the age-verification process itself, noting adults seeking access to pornographic content would be required to prove their age by sharing information listed on a state-issued driver’s license or other governmental form of ID. This identification process, they argued, poses “unique security and privacy concerns” for users who must now trust pornographic websites not to share their personally identifying information.
Arguments against the law did acknowledge the importance of protecting minors from explicit content with protective laws but claimed Texas’ version was “the worst of these laws.”
Related articles:
The war on pornography returns to the supply side | Analysis by Mark Wingfield
All the people the recently proposed Obscenity Act does not protect | Analysis by Mallory Challis