Bill would require adult websites to confirm age of Ohio users
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – Ohio residents would be required to upload photo ID or other age-verifying documentation to access adult websites if a recently introduced bill becomes law.
Under House Bill 84, dubbed 'The Innocence Act,' pornography websites and any website that hosts content that is 'obscene or harmful to juveniles' would have to verify its visitors are at least 18 years old. The legislation is sponsored by Reps. Steve Demetriou (R-Bainbridge Twp.) and Josh Williams (R-Sylvania Twp.).
Fight over DEI in schools rages at Ohio Statehouse
'In Ohio, businesses that primarily sell or rent adult content are legally required to verify the age of their customers,' Demetriou said at the bill's first hearing in February. 'The Innocence Act brings this commonsense safeguard into the 21st century.'
Under the bill, Ohio users of adult websites would have to prove their age through a copy of a government-issued photo ID or another personal document, such as proof of a mortgage or employment. Companies would be required to 'immediately' delete such documents after the age verification is complete unless the user has a subscription or account.
The bill would create a first-degree misdemeanor penalty for each day an adult website fails to verify Ohio users' ages. A first-degree misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine per conviction.
The legislation would also establish the right for parents to file a civil lawsuit if a minor is given access to pornographic materials online. In the scenario where a minor in the state falsifies their way past the age verification, the website owner would be protected under the law, as long as they made a genuine attempt to verify the user's age. Children who attempt to access porn would not face penalties under the bill.
If the bill were to pass, adult websites would be responsible for using a system to monitor the location of its visitors to ensure Ohioans' ages are verified.
Whitehall considering laws to protect transgender and immigrant residents
Demetriou cited multiple studies in support of the bill, including a 2010 study in the scientific journal Aggressive Behavior, which found exposure to violent X-rated content led to an increase in self-reported sexually aggressive behavior. He also noted other findings, including studies that linked porn to heightened feelings of social isolation and sexist attitudes toward women.
'As young children gain more and more access to digital content like this, states like Ohio must act to protect them from harmful materials, as we have with physical media,' Williams said. 'By passing HB 84, Ohio would join Texas, Utah, and Kansas in enacting legislation to protect minors from pornographic materials online.'
The bill would additionally increase penalties for revenge porn — or releasing sexual content of someone without their consent — as well as deepfake porn, which uses existing photos of someone to create sexual materials using artificial intelligence.
Under the legislation, creating deepfake porn would be classified as a fourth-degree felony for a first offense. For repeat offenders or offenses involving minors, the charge would be upgraded to a third-degree felony. Revenge porn would be classified as a fifth-degree felony, which would be upgraded to a fourth-degree felony for a repeat or child-oriented offense.
These crimes are currently classified as misdemeanors under the law, which Demetriou said is 'far too lenient given the serious harm they inflict.'
Large Hilliard development closes in on completion
In the previous General Assembly, Demetriou introduced similar legislation under the same name. The bill received support from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, the Women's Liberation Front, Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and Center for Christian Virtue.
The only opponent testimony came from Gary Daniels with the American Civil Liberties Union. Daniels only spoke out against the age-verification portion of the legislation, saying over history such laws have been weaponized against movies, magazines, video games, sex education and more.
'There is something to be said about parental control and not involving government, law enforcement, courts, and incarceration,' Daniels said. 'Software that filters and/or blocks online content is widely available and inexpensive, much of it free. This allows parents to limit or block access for their own children without requiring the same be done for all minors and without burdening adults.'
The previous bill received four hearings but ultimately did not pass by the end of the legislative session.
Currently, 19 states have passed laws requiring age verification to access online pornography, according to The Age Verification Providers Association. Some adult websites have gone dark in these states, including PornHub, which has blocked access to users in regions that require age verification.
HB 84 was assigned to the Technology and Innovation Committee, where its second hearing will occur on Tuesday. The bill has 25 Republican and three Democrat cosponsors.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Nearly 100 House Democrats urge RFK Jr. to restore millions in family planning grants
A group of nearly 100 House Democrats is calling on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to restore tens of millions of dollars in federal family planning grants to more than a dozen organizations that have been frozen for more than two months. In a letter to Kennedy sent on Friday and seen first by The Hill, 95 lawmakers said the organizations which had their Title X funding frozen on March 31 — including nine Planned Parenthood clinics — are still in the dark about the status of their grants. At the time, the clinics said they received letters from the administration saying the grants were being 'temporarily withheld' due to possible civil right violations and President Trump's executive orders prohibiting the promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and 'taxpayer subsidization of open borders.' More than two months later, the lawmakers said the grantees 'remain without funding and have received no communication from the administration regarding the status of the investigations, the expected timeline, or the future of their funding.' HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 'Congress has already appropriated these funds, and the administration has a responsibility to distribute them without undue delay or obstruction, ensuring that critical care is not disrupted for millions of people who rely on Title X services,' the group of lawmakers wrote. The letter was led by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) and Sharice Davids (D-Kan.), and signed by 91 other Democrats. Title X is the country's only federal program dedicated to providing affordable birth control and other sexual and reproductive health care to low-income Americans and has done so since the 1970s. The lawmakers timed the letter to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to privacy regarding contraception and reproductive decisions. 'However, due to the actions of this administration, reproductive freedom is under threat,' the lawmakers wrote. The first Trump administration prohibited providers from receiving Title X funding if they mentioned abortion or referred patients for abortions. It also required clinics to construct separate facilities for the procedure and other services. More than a dozen grantees, including all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide, left the program in protest because of the rule. The Biden administration reversed Trump's Title X rule in 2021.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
House Democrats' bill would combat LGBTQ elder abuse
Legislation introduced Friday, during Pride Month, by more than a dozen House Democrats would help combat abuse against elderly LGBTQ Americans. The Elder Pride Protection Act would establish a task force within the Department of Justice to study the 'increased incidence of elder abuse' against LGBTQ seniors and develop best practice solutions to be implemented by state and local law enforcement, according to a copy of the bill, shared first with The Hill. 'No one, especially our vulnerable seniors, should ever be mistreated because of who they are or who they love,' said Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), who introduced the bill Friday alongside Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who recently launched a bid to replace retiring Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) in the Senate next year. In November, Gottheimer announced he would run for governor of New Jersey. Craig, who is gay and one of 13 openly LGBTQ members of Congress, said the measure would help shield seniors from abuse and discrimination 'as we continue the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights.' 'LGBTQ+ seniors led the fight for so many of the rights LGBTQ+ Minnesotans enjoy today, and now it's our turn to fight for them,' she said in a statement. LGBTQ older adults are at heightened risk for adverse health and social outcomes compared to their cisgender and heterosexual peers, according to the Center for Health Care Strategies, a New Jersey nonprofit. SAGE, an advocacy group for LGBTQ elders that has endorsed Gottheimer and Craig's bill, has said LGBTQ seniors are more vulnerable to abuse and neglect. Comprehensive data on elder abuse is lacking, though the Justice Department estimates that more than 10 percent of Americans age 65 and older experience some form of elder abuse each year. In limited data, LGBTQ seniors, who are at higher risk of isolation, report elevated rates of abuse, according to SAGE. 'These are challenging times, and now more than ever, LGBTQ+ elders deserve to age without fear of elder abuse,' said Aaron Tax, SAGE's managing director of government affairs and policy advocacy. The bill, which has 14 Democratic co-sponsors, stands little chance of passing the GOP-controlled House. Republicans and President Trump have denounced initiatives that prioritize diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), claiming they stoke divisions and promote 'woke ideology.' A National Center on Elder Abuse webpage previously dedicated to 'advancing justice for LGBTQ elders' appears to have been deleted this year in the administration's purge of government websites following Trump's executive orders targeting DEI and 'gender ideology.' Updated at 10:32 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court's decision could lead to a new era of ‘reverse discrimination' lawsuits
Good morning! A Supreme Court decision yesterday on a case of workplace discrimination could have major impacts on the employment landscape and will affect HR departments across the country. In a unanimous decision, the court sided with Marlean Ames, a former Ohio state government employee who sued her employer after she was passed over for two promotions that went to gay coworkers instead. Ames argued that she was discriminated against for work opportunities because of her heterosexuality. The case first appeared in the sixth circuit court, which ruled against Ames citing the higher standard of proof for discrimination that must be met by members of majority groups, such as men, white people, or heterosexual people. That higher standard is referred to as 'background circumstances,' and plaintiffs must show additional supporting evidence that they were the victims of discrimination. But the Supreme Court's ruled that the additional burden for people from majority groups is unconstitutional, and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The decision wasn't a surprise, and had been anticipated by legal experts. But they tell Fortune that the ruling will likely lead to more reverse discrimination cases against employers in the near future. 'We should expect to see this trend continue, and see an uptick in these so-called reverse discrimination claims brought by men who are not members of historically disadvantaged groups,' Michael Steinberg, a labor and employment attorney at firm Seyfarth Shaw, tells Fortune. The case comes at a particularly fraught time when it comes to the legal landscape of the workplace in general. A combination of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn affirmative action and Trump's executive orders targeting affirmative action have made companies extra cautious about their programs and protocols around diversity initiatives. The Ames case was not centered on DEI policies, but two Supreme Court Justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, specifically referenced DEI in their opinions. David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at New York University, says it's the first instance, since Trump took office, that justices have put their stances around DEI in writing. And he adds it could 'encourage potential plaintiffs to see shifts in the wind and then follow them right to bring future claims.' You can read more about yesterday's Supreme Court decision here. Brit This story was originally featured on