US Supreme Court upholds Texas age-check for porn sites
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.
Other countries such as France, Britain and Germany also enforce age-related access restrictions to adult websites, while companies like Meta 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
an hour ago
- France 24
Republican discord threatens Trump agenda
Trump is hoping to seal his legacy with the so-called "One, Big Beautiful Bill" -- extending his expiring first-term tax cuts at a cost of $4.5 trillion and beefing up border security. But Republicans eying 2026 midterm congressional elections are divided over the package, which would strip health care from millions of the poorest Americans and add more than $3 trillion to America's burgeoning debt pile. Trump ratcheted up pressure on Congress to get the package to his desk by July 4, posting on social media Friday: "We can get it done. It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country." Senate Republican leaders had planned to begin a weekend of votes beginning Friday to pass the sprawling legislation but that timetable was in limbo, with negotiations mired in rows. Republicans are using an arcane process called "reconciliation" which allows them to pass the package on a simple majority, without Democratic buy-in. But there are strict rules governing the provisions allowed in such legislation, adjudicated by the chamber's independent "referee," Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough. The savings come largely from decimating funding for Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income Americans, but MacDonough called some of those cuts out-of-bounds. That leaves around $250 billion in savings on the cutting room floor, and Republicans scrambling to offset the $4.5 trillion cost of Trump's tax relief elsewhere. Republicans are split in any case on the Medicaid cuts, which will threaten scores of rural hospitals and lead to an estimated 8.6 million Americans being deprived of health care. Independent analysis also shows that the bill would pave the way for a historic redistribution of wealth from the poorest 10 percent of Americans to the richest. It is unpopular across multiple demographic, age and income groups, according to extensive recent polling. Although the House has already passed its own version, both chambers have to agree on the same text before it can be signed into law. Republican leaders worked Friday to hammer out a version that can get a quick rubber-stamp in the House without returning to the negotiating table. But more than a dozen House Republicans -- enough to tank the package -- have said they will not vote for the Medicaid cuts. Meanwhile, there are conservatives in both chambers who are adamant that the cuts do not go far enough. "Every Republican senator is committed," Trump said at a White House press conference Friday. But he acknowledged the bill's precarious status, telling reporters that "a couple of grandstanders" could derail his plans. © 2025 AFP
Euronews
4 hours ago
- Euronews
US Supreme Court limits federal judges power on birthright citizenship
The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Shortly after the ruling, Trump told reporters he'd 'promptly file' to advance policies blocked by judges, including birthright citizenship restrictions. He hailed the ruling, calling it "a big, amazing decision" and a "monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law." Despite the ruling, a conservative majority Supreme Court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship limitations could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to US-born children of people who are in the country illegally. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. Are these the last days of US birthright citizenship? Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. The US is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship—the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil'—is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.
France 24
5 hours ago
- France 24
US Supreme Court upholds Texas age-check for porn sites
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. Other countries such as France, Britain and Germany also enforce age-related access restrictions to adult websites, while companies like Meta 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.
