Latest news with #HouseBill1181
Time of India
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Pornhub, XNXX in panic? US Supreme Court ruling lets states crack down on online adult content access
The US Supreme Court has upheld a Texas law mandating age verification for pornography websites, a decision that has stirred concerns within the adult entertainment industry. This 6-3 ruling supports Texas House Bill 1181, which requires users to provide age proof before accessing such sites, potentially impacting access and raising First Amendment and privacy concerns. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Supreme Court Backs Texas Porn Law, Shaking Up the Adult Industry A Major Shift in First Amendment Interpretation Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Justice Clarence Thomas: Smartphones Changed Everything Free Speech Advocates Say Adults Pay the Price Justice Elena Kagan Warns of Privacy Risks in Dissent Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs The US Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law that requires users to prove their age before viewing pornography sites, as per a report. The ruling has set off alarm bells across the adult entertainment industry , where sites like Pornhub and XNXX now face an uncertain future in states enforcing similar laws, according to a HuffPost 6–3 ruling supports Texas House Bill 1181 , a 2023 law that mandates online pornography platforms verify users' ages by giving age proof, as per the report. Any site that fails to comply faces steep fines: $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 if minors gain access, as per the HuffPost to the report, now eighteen states, including Texas, have laws in effect that require age verification for pornography sites, while six other states have enacted such laws that are not yet in READ: Supreme court limits nationwide injunctions: Implications for Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order The decision marks a shift from previous First Amendment rulings. In the 1990s, the Supreme Court struck down two federal laws that attempted to regulate online pornography, the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act, ruling they were unconstitutionally restricting free speech, according to HuffPost Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, and pointed out that technology has advanced since the court's rulings on those laws enacted in the 1990s, as he said, 'With the rise of the smartphone and instant streaming, many adolescents can now access vast libraries of video content—both benign and obscene—at almost any time and place, with an ease that would have been unimaginable at the time' which the court last ruled on online pornography, quoted wrote that, 'The statute advances the State's important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content,' adding, 'And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data," as quoted in the READ: Congress cut off? White House limits intel sharing after Iran strikes report leak But lawyers for the Free Speech Coalition, which is a consortium of porn sites, argued that the law placed an undue burden on the speech of adults by requiring them to undergo age verification, while acknowledging that states may restrict access to pornography for minors, as reported by Thomas rejected their argument by pointing out that the First Amendment does not protect against age verification. He argued that, '[A]dults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification, and the statute can readily be understood as an effort to restrict minors' access,' adding, 'Any burden experienced by adults is therefore only incidental to the statute's regulation of activity that is not protected by the First Amendment,' as quoted in the HuffPost Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, saying, 'Under ordinary First Amendment doctrine, this Court should subject H. B. 1181 to strict scrutiny,' adding, 'That is because H. B. 1181 covers speech constitutionally protected for adults; impedes adults' ability to view that speech; and imposes that burden based on the speech's content. Case closed,' as quoted in the pointed out that because the Texas law requires adults to verify their age by providing a driver's license or data 'associated with things like a job or mortgage,' it acts as 'a deterrent' for adults looking to access pornography, according to the HuffPost also said that, 'It is not, contra the majority, like having to flash ID to enter a club,' adding, 'It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habits—respecting speech many find repulsive—to a website operator, and then to ... who knows? The operator might sell the information; the operator might be hacked or subpoenaed,' as quoted in the if you're in a state with one of these laws. Sites will likely require age proof through ID or other may be blocked from accessing the site in states enforcing these laws.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Dakota governor signs bill to enforce one-gender bathroom policy for K-12 schools
North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong signed a bill May 1, 2025, that prevents K-12 public schools from having all-gender bathrooms. (Micah Drew/Daily Montanan) Gov. Kelly Armstrong on Thursday signed a bill that prevents K-12 public schools from having all-gender bathrooms. It allows parents to file complaints if they think their child's school is not following state laws governing accommodations for transgender students. House Bill 1144 updates a law adopted in 2023 that prevents transgender students from using bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender. It also bars schools and teachers from requiring or prohibiting someone to use students' preferred pronouns. On top of this, the law requires schools and teachers to tell a child's parents if they learn the child is transgender. North Dakota Senate approves bathroom bill that would fine schools for noncompliance House Bill 1144 is meant to give teeth to that law by adding legal penalties. Some lawmakers said they believed schools would not follow the policy without the threat of consequences. The bill 'reinforces the message that our laws are not arbitrary or without meaning,' said Sen. Randy Lemm, R-Hillsboro, who spoke in favor of the bill on the Senate Floor. Concerned parents who believe their school is not following the law may now file a complaint with their school district. If they aren't satisfied with the school district's response, they can take the issue up with the North Dakota Attorney General's Office. Courts that find a school has broken the law can issue fines of up to $2,500 per violation. The amended law also states that any multi-stall bathroom or shower room must be designated exclusively for boys or girls. Multi-stall bathrooms or shower rooms cannot be unisex. In response to concerns that the law would force some school districts to spend millions renovating their bathroom, lawmakers added a provision that exempts restrooms created before July 1, 2025 from the policy. Bathroom bill would make schools less safe, opponents, LGBTQ advocates testify In a conference committee, legislators also added two other exemptions to the law. One makes sure the law doesn't prevent students with developmental disabilities from getting bathroom assistance from paraprofessionals if needed. The other gives schools the ability to temporarily change designation from one sex to another to accommodate school-sponsored events. This could allow a visiting girls sports teams to use a locker room for boys, for example. Both chambers on Monday approved the amended bill. The House approved the policy by a vote of 75-14; and the Senate, by a vote of 40-7. The new law went into effect immediately after it was signed. Armstrong last week also signed into law House Bill 1181, which amends Century Code to state 'words used to reference an individual's gender mean the individual's sex.' The bill's sponsor, SuAnn Olson, R-Baldwin, previously called it a 'common sense' proposal that is 'scientifically honest.' Olson said the bill was meant to bring North Dakota into compliance with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January establishing a two-gender policy for the federal government. Opponents of the policy criticized it as discriminatory to transgender and intersex North Dakotans. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
