By a 6-3 vote, SCOTUS upholds age-verification laws for online porn, holding that they are only subject to intermediate

[In It to Win It]

Mark Joseph Stern
‪@mjsdc.bsky.social‬

The Supreme Court's fifth decision is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. By a 6–3 vote, the court UPHOLDS age-verification laws for online porn, holding that they are only subject to intermediate scrutiny. All three liberals dissent. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf

The Supreme Court's fifth decision is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. By a 6–3 vote, the court UPHOLDS age-verification laws for online porn, holding that they are only subject to intermediate scrutiny. All three liberals dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2025-06-27T15:14:51.104Z

Fifth ruling from #SCOTUS is in the Texas porn age-verification case.

For a 6-3 majority (with the three Democratic appointees dissenting), Justice Thomas *upholds* Texas's age-verification scheme for porn websites against a First Amendment challenge:

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2025-06-27T15:14:32.472Z

[newdeal2]

1. Basically whatever conservatives want, they get

Power grabs all over.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. What the heck does "intermediate scrutiny" mean?

Does it mean only porn companies see the personal info? That's better? What happens when Texas Republicons want to prosecute porn companies for violations under the Act and compel mass handovers of data to law enforcement?

Porn companies are better at shielding data from hacks?

[sakabatou]

4. I think you hit the nail on the head.

"Republicons want to prosecute porn companies for violations under the Act and compel mass handovers of data to law enforcement?"

This!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. It has to do with how the court weighs rights and how the law affects those rights

Strict scrutiny is the highest burden where the government should have to spell out a very compelling interest to enforce this law AND the law has to be the least restrictive

They are basically saying that your right to view online porn is not a sacred right

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Free speech is nothing without the freedom to read. What's next? Registering to read political analysis?

I get your analysis. I'm being a bit rhetorical in my questioning. Certainly people can and have argued that protecting children is a "compelling interest". But practically there are two points: 1) Kids can find porn without paying. 2) Accessing porn sites requires credit cards. If a kid uses their parent's card, parents aren't paying attention or don't care. They aren't monitoring card expenses and not keeping cards away from kids.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Your two points seem to be contradictory

1) Kids can find porn without paying.
2) Accessing porn sites requires credit cards.

Or does 1) mean "porn is available in places other than the web"?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Not contradictory. For example many people grow tomatoes (easy) but still buy produce at supermarket. . . . nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. That doesn't seem an equivalent.

Many people grow tomatoes, but you can't also say they are required (your word) to buy produce at the supermarket.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. Nobody is required to buy porn. . . .nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. That doesn't help.

Your two points still, on the face of it, contradict each other, and your first explanation did not address my question.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. 1) Porn available on free non-porn sites (analogy tomatoes). 2) Most porn is on pay sites (analogy supermarket)

1) Kids can find porn without paying. 2) Accessing porn sites requires credit cards.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. 'Most porn is on pay sites' is different from 'Accessing porn sites requires credit cards'

The first applies to just "most". The second is a universal statement.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Not universal about porn. Only universal about porn sites. Both statements are true.

There is a lot of porn to be found on non-porn sites for free. Most porn is on porn sites, but not all porn. Porn sites are pay sites, gated by credit cards. Porn on non-pay sites is not gated by credit cards.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. That seems like a "no true Scotsman" argument.

Pornhub, for instance, says "Free Porn Videos". Are you saying that therefore it is a non-porn site?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. I wouldn't know that about Pornhub. I've never been to their site. . . . .nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Neither have I, but just googling '"pornhub" "free"' returns

the link to their site, titled "Pornhub: Free Porn Videos & Sex Movies - Porno, XXX, Porn ...", and also links like
https://mashable.com/article/unblock-pornhub-for-free "How to unblock and watch Pornhub for free"

[Sympthsical]

8. It's a legal standard when deciding constitutional issues

It's a little complicated, but the best explanation I can manage is when considering this law, the question the Court posed was whether or not it furthers a legitimate government interest and the law is tailored for this even if it may slightly complicate a constitutional right. In this case, Texas instituted age verification to prevent minors from accessing porn. Adults argued the regulation interfered with their First Amendment right to consume legal content.

When using intermediate scrutiny, the Court's asking 1. Is the law constitutional on its own (can you have age restrictions?) and 2. is the law written to effect solely that purpose? In other words, is the law written with the purpose of preventing minors from accessing porn, or are there sneaky provisions in it whose real aim is to prevent adults from accessing porn? Are they making porn more difficult to access for adults on purpose, or is that added layer of difficulty incidental to the purpose of protecting children?

So there were three levels when deciding what standard to use when judging the constitutionality of a law. Rational basis (least intense), intermediate scrutiny (sometimes it's a violation of rights, but sometimes it's not, so let's explore the space here), and strict scrutiny (it looks like you are either grossly violating constitutional rights or likely to do so, and unless there is a God-level good reason here, we're going to be pretty hostile to what you're doing and the government had better explain itself thoroughly).

In this case, where obscenity is involved, the Court ruled that it lands in the middle. This traces back to a decision in 1968, Ginsberg v. New York, where the Court ruled you can ban adult materials to minors. The speech is protected for adults and not for children. So, in this case, the Court decided to use that medium scrutiny. The law is aimed at children, but has some ancillary effect on adults.

All intermediate scrutiny requires in this case is that the law is not written and executed in such a way that the government is attempting to violate the First Amendment (i.e. they say they're protecting kids, but their real goal is adults).

The Court said that isn't the case. Yeah, it's a slight pain in the ass for adults, but the government's interest in withholding the material from children is legitimate and the law as written is not an excessive burden on adults exercising their rights.

And I'll just quote the salient bit from the decision, because that might actually be clearer than my cobbled explanation:

Because H. B. 1181 simply requires proof of age to access content that is obscene to minors, it does not directly regulate adults’ protected speech. Adults have the right to access speech obscene only to minors, see Butler, 352 U. S., at 383–384, and submitting to age verification burdens the exercise of that right. But adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification. Any burden on adults is therefore incidental to regulating activity not protected by the First Amendment. This makes intermediate scrutiny the appropriate standard under the Court's precedents.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Thank you for taking the time to help me understand. It was not what I thought it might be

So, "intermediate" level of legal scrutiny, not business intermediary scrutiny.

[Arazi]

3. No doubt "adult content" will now include birth control information

Abortion clinic centers, domestic violence hotlines and websites, LGBTQ information resources etc etc etc.

Porn is famously “in the eye of the beholder” and I’ll take the bet that definition of “adult content” is now going to be grossly expanded.

[biocube]

7. It has been the dream of tech companies

any limited anonymity on the internet. That's what this is really about.

[usonian]

15. The Impact of Age Verification Measures Goes Beyond Porn Sites

https://kittens.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/impact-age-verification-measures-goes-beyond-porn-sites?language=en

These challenges keep arising because this isn’t just about safety—it’s censorship. Age verification laws target a slew of broadly-defined topics. Some block access to websites that contain some "sexual material harmful to minors," but define the term so loosely that “sexual material” could encompass anything from sex education to R-rated movies; others simply list a variety of vaguely-defined harms. In either instance, lawmakers and regulators could use the laws to target LGBTQ+ content online.

This risk is especially clear given what we already know about platform content policies. These policies, which claim to "protect children" or keep sites “family-friendly,” often label LGBTQ+ content as “adult” or “harmful,” while similar content that doesn't involve the LGBTQ+ community is left untouched. Sometimes, this impact—the censorship of LGBTQ+ content—is implicit, and only becomes clear when the policies (and/or laws) are actually implemented. Other times, this intended impact is explicitly spelled out in the text of the policies and bills.

Age Verification Mandates Would Undermine Anonymity Online

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/age-verification-mandates-would-undermine-anonymity-online

Last year, France’s Audiovisual and Digital Communication Regulatory Authority ordered several sites with adult content to implement age verification. Then France’s National Commission on Informatics and Liberty, CNIL, published a detailed analysis of current age verification methods. It found that no method has the following three important elements: “sufficiently reliable verification, complete coverage of the population, and respect for the protection of individuals' data and privacy and their security.” In short, every age verification method has significant flaws.

Whether it’s called “age assurance,” “age verification,” or “age estimation,” there are only a few ways the technology can work. Verification usually requires a website or its contractor to analyze every user’s private information, like the information on government-issued identification cards. A potential alternative is for the website to communicate with third-party companies like credit agencies, but they are known for often having mistaken information. A third option is age estimation via facial analysis, which is used by Instagram. But such face recognition technology has its own privacy and other problems, including clear evidence that errors abound.

EFF Warns: Online Age Verification Poses Privacy Risks for All Users

https://malware.guide/news/eff-warns-online-age-verification-poses-privacy-risks-for-all-users/

Online age verification systems are surveillance systems that threaten everyone’s privacy and anonymity, according to the American civil rights movement EFF, in response to a law recently passed in Australia that bans social media for people under the age of 16. To enforce the age ban, social media platforms must take “reasonable measures” to verify the age of users. The use of IDs is not permitted, but according to the EFF this is a ‘failed attempt’ to protect privacy. Platforms will therefore fall back on ‘unreliable tools such as biometric scanners’, the civil rights movement adds. In addition, the law does not state to which platforms the ban will apply. An Australian regulator will determine that. “This gives government officials dangerous powers to crack down on services they don’t like, to the detriment of underage and adult users,” the EFF said. The ban won’t take effect for another 12 months, but the EFF fears the law will affect the privacy, anonymity and data security of all Australians. “Banning social media and introducing mandatory age verification checks is the wrong approach to protecting young people online, and this bill has been pushed through the Australian parliament in haste and with little oversight or scrutiny,” the EFF added. This calls on European and American policymakers not to follow such an approach.

[Johonny]

21. Result, the internet savvy will get to watch porn

And those that aren't won't be able to.

Or all pornsites will go on foreign servers and be like, don't care about this US law.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

23. "... 10 year moratorium would wipe out the Texas law that the Supreme Court just blessed a few hours ago."

Good morning.

Mike Masnick
‪@mmasnick.bsky.social‬

A reminder: age verification is an "automated decision system" so the 10 year moratorium would wipe out the Texas law that the Supreme Court just blessed a few hours ago.

‪Brad Johnson‬
‪@climatebrad.hillheat.com‬
· 6h
The 10-year AI regulation pause is still there, in Sec. 40012
(q) TEMPORARY PAUSE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para9 graph (2), no eligible entity or political subdivision
thereof to which funds made available under sub11 section (b)(5)(A) are obligated on or after the date
of enactment of this subsection may enforce, during
the 10-year period beginning on the date of enact14 ment of this subsection, any law or regulation of
that eligible entity or a political subdivision thereof
limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial
intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or
automated decision systems entered into interstate
commerce.
ALT
June 28, 2025 at 1:10 AM

A reminder: age verification is an "automated decision system" so the 10 year moratorium would wipe out the Texas law that the Supreme Court just blessed a few hours ago.

— Mike Masnick (@mmasnick.bsky.social) 2025-06-28T05:10:24.742Z

[Buckeyeblue]

24. There is so much porn on the internet i don't know how this law can be enforced

This law is less about porn than it is the regulation of the internet and to start chipping away at the first amendment. If this case had been about age verification laws to view religious or racist sites, the decision would have been much different. But this is about creating a second class of speech that can be regulated, outlawed or threatened with paralyzingly large fines (and legal expenses).

We all know Thomas doesn't care about porn. Whenever someone seems too upset about porn, I immediately want to ask to view their search history. I bet it's deleted.