Latest news with #FreeSpeechCoalition
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court expected to rule on Texas porn age verification law
WASHINGTON (KXAN) – The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the coming days on whether Texas can require pornographic websites to verify users' ages, a case that could reshape online speech protections and affect similar laws in more than 20 states. The justices heard arguments in January over Texas House Bill 1181, which requires websites with content 'harmful to minors' to check government-issued IDs before allowing access. The law carries fines up to $10,000 per violation, rising to $250,000 if minors are involved. At the heart of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is a fundamental constitutional question: What legal standard should courts use when evaluating laws that restrict adults' access to protected speech in the name of protecting children? The adult entertainment industry argues the law violates the First Amendment by burdening adults' access to legal content and eliminating their anonymity online. Texas counters that age verification is a reasonable way to protect minors, similar to laws preventing alcohol sales to children. The case has already had real-world impact. Pornhub, one of the world's most popular adult sites, blocked Texas users rather than comply with the identification requirements. A federal judge initially blocked the law, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the age verification portion to take effect. The appeals court applied 'rational basis review,' the most lenient constitutional standard, reasoning that laws protecting children need only be reasonable. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended the law as protecting children. 'We are not going to lose,' Paxton told reporters in January. 'We are going to have the right to enforce this.' The Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult industry, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that courts should apply 'strict scrutiny' — the most demanding standard — because the law restricts content-based speech. The group points to the court's 2004 decision in Ashcroft v. ACLU, where justices struck down a federal law requiring age verification for websites with content 'harmful to children.' The decision will affect similar age verification laws enacted in states including Louisiana, Utah, Virginia and Arkansas. By one count, 23 states passed such measures in 2023 and 2024. Civil liberties groups warn the laws expose adults to privacy risks and could set precedent for broader internet restrictions. Child safety advocates support the measures as necessary protections in the digital age. The Court will be issuing opinions throughout the month of June, before their summer recess. The next term for the Supreme Court starts in October. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
3 Supreme Court Cases To Watch in June 2025
The clock is ticking for the U.S. Supreme Court. It's the second week of June and the justices always try to wrap up their term before the calendar hits July. As of this writing, there are still 28 cases pending. Which means that a ton of big decisions will be dropping in the next few weeks. So, what's headed our way? Here are three noteworthy cases that I'm on the lookout for. This case involves a Texas law requiring websites that contain "pornographic material" to verify that the site's users are at least 18 years old. The law's stated goal is to prevent minors from viewing porn. But as the Free Speech Coalition, an adult industry trade group, points out, there is no way to screen out minors online without also vetting the ages of adults, and Texas' intrusive age-verification process unavoidably—and unconstitutionally—burdens the free speech rights of those adults. The state's age-verification requirement "imposes a clear burden," the Free Speech Coalition told the Supreme Court, "forcing adult users to incur severe privacy and security risks—which the statute leaves largely unaddressed—before they can access constitutionally protected speech." The specific legal question here is about what level of judicial review the Texas law should face. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the age-verification law should be judged under "rational-basis review," which is the most deferential—meaning, it is the most pro-government—form of judicial review. It is no exaggeration to say that when the government encounters rational-basis review, the government stands an excellent chance of winning the case. However, cases involving fundamental rights such as freedom of speech are normally judged under a very different standard. That standard, known as "strict scrutiny," is the most searching form of judicial review. Under strict scrutiny, the government must, first, prove that its law serves a compelling government intent, and, second, prove that the law is the least restrictive means available of advancing that interest. If the government fails to satisfy either of those two prongs, the law is struck down. In other words, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton asks whether the 5th Circuit got it wrong by deferring to the state under rational-basis review when the 5th Circuit should have instead given the state a far more rigorous exam under strict scrutiny. If that sounds like so much legalese, please believe me when I say that the stakes are high. If the First Amendment gets watered down from "strict scrutiny" to "rational-basis" in this case, then the First Amendment will be watered down in many future cases, too. A win for Texas means a loss for freedom of speech. The FBI raided Tina Martin's home in 2017. Still reeling from an exploding flash grenade, she found herself held at gunpoint, unable to reach or comfort her understandably terrified seven-year-old son, who was in another room. To make matters worse, it was a wrong-house raid. The feds were supposed to be at a different house on a different block looking for a different person. They wrecked Martin's home and traumatized her family because the officers never even bothered to make sure they were at the correct location. However, when Martin filed a civil suit seeking damages, the federal court said she was barred from filing suit under the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act. So, the legal question now before the Supreme Court is whether Martin should have been able to sue. In short, this case is about holding the government accountable for its misdeeds. And make no mistake, the government is actively trying to dodge accountability for the entirely avoidable damage that it caused. As Reason's Billy Binion has noted, the Justice Department's arguments against accountability include the claim, apparently made with a straight face before SCOTUS, that it would have been too much to ask for those federal officers to pause in the driveway and check the address on the mailbox before storming the house. "That sort of decision is filled with policy tradeoffs because checking the house number at the end of the driveway," Assistant to the Solicitor General Frederick Liu told the justices, "means exposing the agents to potential lines of fire from the windows." If you listen to the audio recording of that oral argument, you can hear Justice Neil Gorsuch scoff out the word "really" in apparent disbelief while Liu made the above statement. Gorsuch then asked the government lawyer: "How about making sure you're on the right street? Is that…you know, asking too much?" To require the government to make amends for its misconduct should never be asking too much. A win for Tina Martin in this case is a win for greater government accountability overall. This is the case arising from President Donald Trump's executive order purporting to abolish birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and temporary legal visitors, such as people holding a work visa. As I've previously argued, Trump's position is unconstitutional under the text, history, and original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Supreme Court rules on the merits of Trump's order, he deserves to lose 9–0. But this case is not exactly about the legality of that presidential decree. Rather, it is about whether federal district judges may issue nationwide injunctions that entirely block such presidential decrees from going into effect while the litigation against them plays out in court. Judging by last month's oral arguments, there is a chance that Trump will secure some kind of win on the nationwide injunctions issue. "Which is not exactly a surprise," as I wrote at the time, because several justices "are already on record as critics of the practice." It is possible that those critical justices will craft a technical ruling that avoids the birthright citizenship debate while at the same time using that debate as the opportunity to reach the result that they already wanted to reach on nationwide injunctions. But it is also possible that the Court will not be able to reach any kind of consensus. For its part, the Trump administration has made the sweeping claim that nationwide injunctions are always unconstitutional. Are there actually five justices on the Court willing to go that far? Maybe. But then again, maybe several justices would prefer to limit the practice without abolishing it outright. We may end up with a fractured opinion that ultimately settles little. The Supreme Court is currently scheduled to release its next batch of opinions on Thursday, June 12. We'll see what we get. One of the upsides of living in upstate New York is that there's a historic drive-in movie theater operating just a short distance away. The Hi-Way Drive-In first opened its gates in 1951 and recently kicked off its 2025 season. Attendees get to enjoy a nice mix of new releases and repertory favorites on the drive-in's four (count 'em!) huge outdoor screens. You're most likely to find me hanging around when there's a double-feature of horror classics on the bill, such as the memorable night a few years back when I caught George Romero's Dawn of the Dead followed by Romero's Day of the Dead. A bucket of fresh popcorn, a cool night breeze, and a horde of shambling zombies. What's not to love? The post 3 Supreme Court Cases To Watch in June 2025 appeared first on
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas passes bill to require Apple, Google app store users to verify age for new downloads
Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill last week that will require mobile phone app stores to verify the ages of users, despite a phone call from the CEO of one of the world's largest companies urging the governor to veto the legislation. While the proposal has support from some industry giants, such as social media companies Meta and X, iPhone manufacturer Apple has pushed back against it. The company's chief executive Tim Cook personally called Abbott to urge him to veto the bill, the Wall Street Journal reported. Abbott signed anyway. The signing comes as the Legislature considers additional internet age-gating measures, including a proposal to bar minors from creating social media accounts. Texas has already passed a similar bill targeting adult websites, resulting in dozens of sites — including major platforms like Pornhub — being blocked in the state since early last year. The law imposed age verification mandates similar to those proposed in the newly passed legislation, and many sites complied. However, Pornhub and other websites owned by its parent company, Aylo, chose to block access to Texans instead. At the time, the Free Speech Coalition argued that the law violated free speech protections and was overly broad, restricting access not just for minors but also for adults. The group also warned that age-verification systems could become prime targets for hackers, potentially exposing sensitive personal data such as Social Security numbers, addresses, and birthdates. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton in January, but no changes have occurred. The new legislation, known as the App Store Accountability Act, will require operators of mobile phone app marketplaces, such as Apple and Google, to limit access to app downloads for minors without parental consent. Tech companies will be required to use an industry-standard method to verify users' ages, which supporters say will protect kids from harmful content online. Users will also be unable to make in-app purchases without parental consent, the Austin American-Statesman reported last week. Supporters commend the bill for aiming to curb online harms and hold tech platforms accountable, especially when it comes to apps frequently used by minors, such as Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and Discord. They point to a rise in online bullying, exposure to explicit content and exploitative advertising as reasons for the law. Critics argue, however, that the law threatens First Amendment rights and could set a dangerous precedent for regulating online speech. They warn that requiring age verification — even for apps that host protected forms of expression like art, political discourse or identity-based content — could discourage access to lawful content, especially for older teens. Digital rights groups also raise concerns that the personal data required for age checks could be misused or breached, and that forcing users to hand over IDs or other sensitive information could have a chilling effect on free expression. Senate Bill 2420, which was drafted by Republican Sen. Angela Paxton of McKinney, will take effect on Jan. 1, 2026. All apps available through major app stores — such as Apple's App Store and Google Play — will require age verification for users in Texas. This ranges from social media platforms and games to utility apps, such as weather or sports score applications, according to The Wall Street Journal. According to the text, if a developer makes a 'significant change' to an app — such as altering how personal data is collected, adding new ads or in-app purchases, changing the app's age rating, or updating its functionality or user experience — they must notify the app store, which will likely trigger new age verification requirements, even if the app was downloaded before the law took effect. In short, apps already on a user's device may still prompt age verification if they are updated in a way that falls under the law's definition of a significant change. However, the legislation does not explicitly clarify whether age verification will be required retroactively for apps downloaded prior to the law's effective date. Not all apps require updates immediately, as users can choose to disable automatic updates and update apps manually at their own pace. However, most apps eventually require updates to fix bugs, add new features or comply with new policies — meaning that even if an app is already downloaded, users will likely need to update it over time. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: When does the Texas age verification bill take effect? What it entails
Newsweek
27-05-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Supreme Court's Free Speech v. Paxton Decision Could Protect Kids Online
Can a state place age restrictions on pornography websites so that children cannot access their material? The U.S. Supreme Court will decide that critical question in its forthcoming opinion in the case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. For those who've not been following this case, this is a decision worth paying close attention to. It will be of critical importance for future state and federal efforts to protect kids online, especially from pornography. The case started with a lawsuit, brought by the trade association for the pornography industry, masking itself behind the name "Free Speech Coalition." The association sued the state of Texas over a law, H.B. 1181, that requires pornographic websites doing business in Texas to "use reasonable age verification methods" to verify that a customer "is 18 years of age or older." The law applies to any commercial entity that "knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material on an Internet website, including a social media platform, more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors." Companies that do not institute the required age verification will be subject to fines of up to $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 if a child is exposed to pornographic content because of a failure to verify his or her age. The law was initially enjoined from taking effect by a district court in Texas, but then the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction. So the law, although appealed up to the Supreme Court for review, has been in effect in Texas since November 14, 2023. Texas' law has already been making a significant impact. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued several large pornography websites under the law, including one in February 2024 against Aylo Global Entertainment, which runs several of the largest pornography websites, including Pornhub. Texas found that the company, instead of age verifying and restricting its material, immediately presents minors who access their websites with pornographic content. Rather than comply with the requirements of the law, PornHub opted to stop doing business entirely in Texas. Then in March 2024, Texas sued two more pornography companies, Multi Media LLC and Hammy Media, failing to provide sufficient screening to prevent minors from accessing their material. Texas has now secured a settlement with Multi Media LLC, in which the latter agreed to use an age verification service on its Chaturbate website to ensure compliance. These are the kinds of results we want to see nationwide to protect America's children. Whether we will comes down to the Supreme Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. If the Court upholds the constitutionality of age-verification laws for pornography websites, it would pave the path for other states' laws to go forward as well (there are now 23 states with laws similar to Texas'), and hopefully for a nationwide age-verification law like Senator Mike Lee's (R-Utah) SCREEN Act. But if they don't, future efforts to protect America's kids will be imperiled. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton arrives at Manhattan Criminal Court for former US President Donald Trump's trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments linked to extramarital affairs, in New York City, on April 30,... Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton arrives at Manhattan Criminal Court for former US President Donald Trump's trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments linked to extramarital affairs, in New York City, on April 30, 2024. More JUSTIN LANE / POOL / AFP/Getty Images So what should we expect in the Court's ruling? I expect the Court's decision to grapple heavily with two important questions. First, what standard of review should be applied to age-verification laws for pornography websites? And second, how should the law and precedents apply, given the vast technological changes we've seen over the previous 20 years? Those questions were the main themes of oral argument. When the Justices asked what standard of legal review should be applied, Texas argued for "rational basis," the lowest level of review, whereas, the porn industry argued for "strict scrutiny," the highest standard. The Justices seemed to land somewhere in between the two. The Justices' other main line of questioning focused on what the technological changes over the last 20 years mean for how effective filtering technology is. In Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), the Court had found that age verification was not constitutional because content filters would be an "effective and less restrictive means" to protect minors. I am cautiously optimistic that the Court will uphold the Texas law, mainly because the majority of the Justices recognized that content filters have been extremely ineffective in the era of smartphones and social media. They've also acknowledged that websites now have the technology to verify users' age in ways that are anonymous and convenient, relieving the potential burden on adult speech. Whether the Court overturns Ashcroft or issues a ruling mainly guided by other precedents, given the Justices' acknowledgement of the vast changes in technology over the last 20 years, the eventual ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton will most likely allow states a way forward for age-restricting minors' access to online pornography. Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized that we don't want two separate constitutional regimes in our country—one for the online world and one for the real world. The goal should be to have those be as similar as possible. I am hopeful the Paxton ruling will help bring our governance of the virtual world more in line with our governance of the real world, rather than driving the two further apart. Clare Morell is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and author of the forthcoming book, The Tech Exit: A Practical Guide to Freeing Kids and Teens from Smartphones. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Boston Globe
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Here are the major cases the Supreme Court will rule on in the coming weeks
Here are some of the key cases the Supreme Court will rule on in the coming weeks: Advertisement Treatment for transgender minors: United States v. Skrmetti The Supreme Court will rule on whether a Tennessee law that bars health care providers from administering gender affirming medical treatments to minors, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up After more than two hours of arguments in December, the conservative majority Supreme Court The liberal justices appeared likely to side with the challengers, as 26 states with similar bans on gender-affirming care for minors face ongoing lawsuits. Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship: On May 15, the Supreme Court will Advertisement The Trump administration has Birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, grants automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States and was ratified in 1868. Opting out of lessons featuring LGBTQ books: Mahmoud v. Taylor The Supreme Court is set to weigh in on whether public schools must accommodate parents' religious beliefs by allowing them to withdraw their children from lessons featuring books with LGBTQ themes. In Montgomery County, Maryland, a group of parents is challenging the school district's refusal to let them withdraw their children from elementary classes when LGBTQ books are presented in class. They argue the policy violates their right to freely practice their religion, but lower courts have upheld the school district's stance. During oral arguments on April 22, the Supreme Court Public funding for religious public charter school: St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond The Supreme Court will decide whether Oklahoma can allow the nation's first religious public charter school, a case that could blur the line between church and state. The After more than two hours of arguments April 30, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to be the only justice whose vote was uncertain. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself and did not take part in the case. Advertisement Age verification for porn sites: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton The Supreme Court is set to rule on whether states can mandate age verification for access to online pornography. Texas defends the law as a way to protect minors, while the adult entertainment industry claims it infringes on free speech rights under the First Amendment. During arguments on Jan. 15, the Louisiana's voting map: Landry v. Callais The Supreme Court will decide whether to uphold Louisiana's congressional map used in the 2024 election, which features two majority-Black districts. The map is being challenged by Black voters and civil rights organizations who argue that state lawmakers improperly considered race when redrawing district lines after the 2020 Census. The outcome could shape how legislatures across the country factor race into the redistricting process. The Planned Parenthood funding: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic The Supreme Court will determine whether states can block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. While Medicaid, a program for low-income people, Patients who go to Planned Parenthood for treatments like contraception, cancer screenings, and physical exams could see their care upended if the court sides with South Carolina leaders who say no public money should go to the organization. The justices appear divided after hearing oral arguments on April 2. Advertisement Free preventive care under the Affordable Care Act: Kennedy v. Braidwood Management The Supreme Court is set to decide whether insurers must continue providing preventive health services at no cost under the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. The law currently mandates coverage of a wide range of preventive care, including cancer screenings, mammograms, and HIV prevention drugs. The case originated from a Christian business owner who challenged the requirement to cover an HIV prevention drug, arguing it conflicted with his religious beliefs. During Accountability on FBI raid that targeted the wrong house: Martin v. United States The Supreme Court will determine the circumstances under which federal law enforcement can be held accountable for actions that harm innocent people. The case stems from a 2017 incident in which FBI agents mistakenly raided the Atlanta home of Trina Martin, breaking down her door and pointing guns at her and her family before realizing they had targeted the wrong address. After Material from the Associated Press were used in this report. Alyssa Vega can be reached at
