US Supreme Court upholds Texas age-check for porn sites
The US Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify visitors' ages, rejecting arguments that this violates free speech and boosting efforts to protect children from online sexual content.
The court's decision will impact a raft of similar laws nationwide and could set the direction for internet speech regulation as concerns about the impact of digital life on society grow.
Texas is one of about 20 US states to institute checks that porn viewers are over 18, which critics argue violate First Amendment free speech rights.
Britain and Germany also enforce age-related access restrictions to adult websites, while a similar policy in France was blocked by the courts a week ago.
US companies like Meta, meanwhile, are lobbying Washington lawmakers for age-based verification to be carried out by smartphone giants Apple and Google on their app stores.
The Texas law was passed in 2023 by the state's Republican-majority legislature but was initially blocked after a challenge by an adult entertainment industry trade association.
A federal district court sided with the trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, saying the law restricted adults' access to constitutionally protected content.
But a conservative-dominated appeals court upheld the age verification requirement, prompting the pornography trade group to take its case to the Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority.
Under the law, companies that fail to properly verify users' ages face fines up to $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 if a child is exposed to pornographic content as a result.
To protect privacy, the websites aren't allowed to retain any identifying information obtained from users when verifying ages, and doing so could cost companies $10,000 daily in fines.
During arguments in January before the Supreme Court, a lawyer representing the Free Speech Coalition said the law was "overly burdensome" and that its goal could be accomplished using content filtering programs.
But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the mother of seven children, took issue with the efficacy of content filtering, saying that from personal experience as a parent, such programs were difficult to maintain across the many types of devices used by kids.
Barrett also asked the lawyer to explain why requesting age verification online is any different than doing so at a movie theater that displays pornographic movies.
The lawyer for the Free Speech Coalition -- which includes the popular website Pornhub that has blocked all access in some states with age verification laws -- said online verification was different as it leaves a "permanent record" that could be a target for hackers.
During the court's hearing of the case in January, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, both Republican appointees, seemed to suggest that advances in technology might justify reviewing online free speech cases.
In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down, in an overwhelming 7-2 decision, a federal online age-verification law in what became a landmark free speech case that set a major precedent for the internet age.
arp/sms/bgs
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
34 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Wind, Solar Credits Face Shorter Phase-Out in GOP's New Tax Bill
Key tax incentives for US wind and solar projects would face a more aggressive phase-out in the Senate's latest version of President Donald Trump's spending package. The tweak, which follows pushback by Trump on the Inflation Reduction Act credits, would sharply limit the number of solar and wind farms that qualify for incentives, appeasing opponents while risking the ire of moderate members who argued for a slower phase-out.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can PayPal Stock Hit $125 in 2025?
Digital payment giant PayPal's (PYPL) story has been anything but smooth. After soaring in 2020 and carrying the momentum into early 2021, PYPL stock stumbled, ending three consecutive years in the red. While 2024 brought a much-needed rebound, 2025 has seen shares slip once again. Much of PayPal's decline can be traced to rising competition. Newer, faster fintech rivals have outpaced the company with sleeker, more intuitive payment solutions. Still, PayPal isn't going down without a fight. In response, PayPal brought in CEO Alex Chriss in 2023 to reset its strategy. Under his leadership, the company has launched features like one-click and express checkout while sharpening its focus on profitable growth and operational efficiency. Dear Nvidia Stock Fans, Watch This Event Today Closely A $2 Billion Reason to Sell Super Micro Computer Stock Now 3 ETFs Offering Juicy Dividend Yields of 15% or Higher Tired of missing midday reversals? The FREE Barchart Brief newsletter keeps you in the know. Sign up now! PayPal's ever-expanding partner network — featuring giants such as Amazon (AMZN), Shopify (SHOP), Apple (AAPL), Alphabet (GOOGL), and Meta Platforms (META) — also remains a powerful asset. With Wall Street's highest target pegged at $125 for the stock, can PayPal rally hard enough to hit that mark before the year wraps? PayPal runs a global technology platform that connects merchants and consumers through a dynamic two-sided network. Whether shopping online or in-person, users can pay, get paid, transfer, or withdraw funds using a wide range of options, including bank accounts and cards, PayPal and Venmo balances, cryptocurrency, and more — making digital payments seamless and accessible worldwide. With its market capitalization currently hovering around $71 billion, PayPal remains a major player in the fintech space. However, its stock performance tells a different story. Delivering a 25% return over the past one year, the stock has taken a 14% hit so far in 2025, underperforming the broader S&P 500 Index ($SPX) by a wide margin, with the benchmark up 4.4% year-to-date (YTD). PYPL stock touched a YTD high of $93.25 in January but has since fallen more than 21% from that peak. Considering its sluggish price action, PayPal now appears to be a potential value play. The stock is trading at just 14 times forward earnings and 2.25 times sales, which is significantly below its five-year averages. For investors hunting for discounted fintech names, PayPal's current valuation could offer an attractive entry point. PayPal delivered its fiscal 2025 first-quarter earnings on April 29. The results were a mixed bag, showing a slight revenue miss but a strong profit beat. Sales rose just 1% year-over-year (YOY) to $7.8 billion, falling short of expectations. However, the company made it clear this was by design. PayPal emphasized its strategic pivot toward profitability, deliberately phasing out lower-margin revenue streams. That shift paid off on the bottom line. Adjusted EPS came in at $1.33, up 23% from a year ago and beating Wall Street estimates by an impressive 15.7% margin. PayPal continued to strengthen its financial footing in Q1, with transaction margin dollars — the company's core profitability metric — rising 7% to $3.7 billion. Active accounts grew 2% YOY to reach 436 million, reflecting steady user engagement. Backed by a strong balance sheet with $15.8 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and investments, PayPal also returned $1.5 billion to shareholders through share repurchases, underscoring its commitment to capital returns. Reflecting on the Q1 performance, Chriss noted, 'PayPal had a great start to the year and our strategy is working. This is our fifth consecutive quarter of profitable growth with progress across branded checkout, PSP, omnichannel, and Venmo.' Looking ahead, PayPal offered a dose of optimism with strong Q2 guidance, projecting adjusted EPS between $1.29 and $1.31, signaling continued momentum on the profitability front. For the full year, the company took a more cautious stance. Citing ongoing global macroeconomic uncertainty, PayPal reaffirmed its earlier guidance, expecting full-year EPS to land between $4.95 and $5.10. By comparison, analysts tracking PayPal project the company's profit to grow 9.3% annually to $5.08 per share in fiscal 2025, followed by an even stronger 11% rise to $5.64 in fiscal 2026. Overall, Wall Street sentiment toward PYPL stock remains cautiously upbeat, with analysts giving it a consensus 'Moderate Buy' rating. Of the 44 analysts offering recommendations, 16 give it a solid 'Strong Buy" rating, two suggest a 'Moderate Buy,' 22 give a 'Hold,' and the remaining four advocate for a 'Strong Sell" rating. PYPL stock's average analyst price target of $79.81 indicates 9% potential upside. But the Street-high target of $125 tells a more bullish story, implying a potential rally of 70% if the company's turnaround strategy hits its stride. On the date of publication, Anushka Mukherji did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship
(Bloomberg) -- A US Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they're born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares US Renters Face Storm of Rising Costs Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown The justices didn't rule on the constitutionality of Trump's restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect. That opens a potential path for Trump's ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma. State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the US unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others. 'What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,' said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. 'Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?' Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump's restrictions can't take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court. Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump's order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive. Trump celebrated Friday's ruling as a 'monumental victory.' His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country. Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They're already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump's policy while their lawsuits proceed. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. 'The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.' Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court. 'There's lots of unanswered questions,' she said. Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. 'The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president's anti-democratic agenda,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.' America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données
