US Supreme Court porn site ruling sets stage for broader online age verification debate
AUSTIN (KXAN)– The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Friday to uphold a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify users’ ages, setting a precedent that could affect similar legislation in more than 20 states.
The court applied “intermediate scrutiny” to House Bill 1181, finding the law only incidentally burdens adults’ First Amendment rights while serving the state’s compelling interest in protecting children from sexually explicit material.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said age verification requirements are “ordinary and appropriate means” of protecting minors, comparing online verification to longstanding requirements for purchasing alcohol or tobacco.
Legal implications and industry response
The court’s application of intermediate rather than strict scrutiny makes it significantly easier for states to defend age verification laws, though such measures must still be reasonably tailored to serve important governmental interests.
Technology companies in the verification space see the ruling as validation of their methods. Lina Ghazal, head of regulatory and public affairs at VerifyMy, an age verification technology provider, said the decision validates privacy-preserving verification methods her company has developed.
“What they said today is that verification does not censor, and that’s really important,” Ghazal said. “It’s really about ensuring that content reaches the right audience, and that’s what we do offline.”
Ghazal said modern age verification technology collects minimal data needed for verification, then deletes it. Platforms receive only a yes or no answer about a user’s age, not personal information. The company retains verification records for around 28 days depending on the state to comply with various state laws, but the data is encrypted and anonymized, she said.
Privacy advocates raise concerns
However, digital rights groups strongly oppose the ruling, citing privacy and security risks. Aaron Mackey, Electronic Frontier Foundation’s free speech and transparency litigation director, said the decision threatens Texans’ privacy and First Amendment rights.
“It’s going to be a privacy and data security disaster,” Mackey said. “It’s going to mean that a lot of folks can’t be anonymous online when they access certain lawful speech that they’re entitled to.”
Mackey disputed industry claims about data security, saying the law requires people to provide personal information that could be accessed by online advertisers, data brokers or exposed in security breaches. Instead of age verification mandates, he argued, Texas could have achieved its goals through filtering software and parental controls that don’t burden adults’ constitutional rights.
Former performer’s perspective
The debate extends beyond legal and technical concerns to personal experiences with the industry itself. Brittni De La Mora, who worked in the adult film industry for seven years before leaving, supports the ruling as a necessary protection for children.
“What age verification does is it’s going to protect minors from stumbling on to things that are harmful to them,” said De La Mora, who now helps people struggling with pornography addiction. She noted how easily current systems can be bypassed: “It has been so easy where a 10-year-old can go on any website and click, yes, I’m 18, enter, and now their poor brains are flooded with all of these things that are really toxic and harmful.”
De La Mora’s concerns stem from her own early exposure to pornography at age 12 and later experiences in the industry, where she said she witnessed abuse and exploitation, including performers being pressured to continue scenes while distressed. She said she would support Texas going further to ban pornographic content entirely.
Dissenting views and what’s next
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, calling the majority’s reasoning “confused” and arguing it abandoned decades of First Amendment precedent requiring strict scrutiny for content-based speech restrictions.
The ruling is expected to influence similar legislation pending in more than 20 states, as lawmakers and courts now have Supreme Court guidance on how such laws will be evaluated.
