Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts United States Your Rights Online

Supreme Court Declines To Block Texas Porn Restriction (nbcnews.com) 145

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to block on free speech grounds a provision of Texas law aimed at preventing minors from accessing pornographic content online. From a report: The justices turned away a request made by the Free Speech Coalition, a pornography industry trade group, as well as several companies. The challengers said the 2023 law violates the Constitution's First Amendment by requiring anyone using the platforms in question, including adults, to submit personal information.

One provision of the law, known as H.B. 1181, mandates that platforms verify users' ages by requiring them to submit information about their identities. Although the law is aimed at limiting children's access to sexually explicit content, the lawsuit focuses on how those measures also affect adults. "Specifically, the act requires adults to comply with intrusive age verification measures that mandate the submission of personally identifying information over the internet in order to access websites containing sensitive and intimate content," the challengers wrote in court papers.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supreme Court Declines To Block Texas Porn Restriction

Comments Filter:
  • That was dumb (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DrMrLordX ( 559371 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @02:47PM (#64436610)

    The law likely violates the Interstate Commerce clause. Of course the Supreme threw out a questionable 1A argument.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Stacking a court with unqualified partisan stooges might have been a bad idea.

    • Re:That was dumb (Score:4, Informative)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @03:08PM (#64436684)

      No, this doesn't violate the Interstate Commerce clause - at least not rationally, but I'm sure the Feds would likely to assert that it does.

      Child sexual predation doesn't seem like something they'd want to get involved in at this time, however.

      "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

      That's it. The Commerce Clause is so broadly interpreted that it's been used to prohibit local-only production of raw milk for local consumption and has largely been used as a cudgel for political purposes.

      It has been largely used since Marshall as the basis for arguments in favor for a centralized, planned economy, and for largely totalitarian control.

      Just like the 1st Amendment and the 'free speech zones' and other similar breaches of liberty, the Commerce Clause has been hollowed out to mean exactly what the federal government needs it to say to exert more control over the populace.

    • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      The law likely violates the Interstate Commerce clause.

      I'd guess not. The interstate commerce clause says that Congress may regulate commerce among the several states, not that it must.

      • Re:That was dumb (Score:5, Insightful)

        by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @04:20PM (#64436926)

        It also says states can't regulate their trade between states, that's the feds job.

        How this might apply here is if the porn sites are hosted outside of Texas.

        • Bingo. And Pornhub isn't hosted solely in Texas.

        • Under this novel theory, all state alcohol regulations are invalid.

    • Re:That was dumb (Score:4, Interesting)

      by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @04:01PM (#64436876)

      The law likely violates the Interstate Commerce clause. Of course the Supreme threw out a questionable 1A argument.

      Internet gambling sites require age verification. Does this violate the interstate commerce clause too?

      • Poorly framed question. You haven't even bothered to say which gambling sites have these requirements or why.

        To address the broader point of who should or should not regulate gambling websites, keep in mind that until recently, gambling was broadly against the law in the United States. There was a brief period where poker sites were allowing g anyone in the US to gamble, and the Feds stepped in to regulate (if I recall correctly).

      • Gambling sites involve payouts. You can't do that *without* identification of personal data. Also, I'm not aware of any law requiring that they do age verification.
  • Lies (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @02:52PM (#64436624)

    Although the law is aimed at limiting children's access to sexually explicit content,

    No it doesn't. Stop pandering to the policy makers lies.

    It's obvious why those crooks would say such a blatant lie, but the rest of us do not need to pretend their lies have any hold on reality.

    This law has absolutely nothing to do with limiting children's access to anything.
    The law has one purpose and it is to gather a listing of adults accessing material which the state government can use to retaliate against and punish for doing so in entirely non-transparent and illegal ways.

    That is the one and only thing it serves to do.

    • Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LazarusQLong ( 5486838 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @03:49PM (#64436826)
      at one point back in the dark ages of time (the 1970's/80's) it was the law in Georgia (the state in the USA, not the country) that a married man getting head from his wife was illegal, if done in their own house with the curtains drawn.

      A sane judge in Georgia tried to get that law stricken from the books, I do not know if they were successful.

      The idea of 'obscenity' has been kicked around by the courts sooooo much, it seems that every single judge has a different definition. If a law that takes names and locations of people that view pornography passes, then there is a likelihood that courts in those jurisdictions will look to prosecute those people if it is deemed politically expedient, or if the religious right votes to so do.

      • at one point back in the dark ages of time (the 1970's/80's) it was the law in Georgia (the state in the USA, not the country) that a married man getting head from his wife was illegal, if done in their own house with the curtains drawn.

        A sane judge in Georgia tried to get that law stricken from the books, I do not know if they were successful.

        The idea of 'obscenity' has been kicked around by the courts sooooo much, it seems that every single judge has a different definition. If a law that takes names and locations of people that view pornography passes, then there is a likelihood that courts in those jurisdictions will look to prosecute those people if it is deemed politically expedient, or if the religious right votes to so do.

        This doesn't fall under "obscenity', it is not banned. Any adult can access it.

      • Re:Lies (Score:4, Funny)

        by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @04:23PM (#64436932)

        This is why I always ask my lady to give me head with the curtains open. I dont live in Georgia but you cant be too careful.

        • good point, I will have to ensure my wife does as well, just to be on the safe side... We don't live in Georgia either, but, you know how these states are behaving these days, you can't be too careful.
      • I'm not familiar with that case, but such laws were eventually ruled unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas.

        Now it's legal to get all the head you want in the privacy of your own home as long as you're both consenting adults even if you are both men.

        And that includes "butt stuff" too in case anyone was wondering.

        • I was unaware of the case you cited, I just knew of the Georgia Judge trying to get that law off the books because my mom was in law school at the time and she would call me up to discuss crazy things that were illegal or legal as she studied.

          Thank you for the citation

    • The law was always intended as a way to harm revenue of adult websites. Having to enter an id would cause any website's traffic to drop precipitously. Lawmakers know this, it's intentional interference.
    • by 0xG ( 712423 )

      It provides a revenue stream to the members of the AVPA, the Age Verification Providers Association.
      https://avpassociation.com/ [avpassociation.com]
      'Making the internet age-aware'. No shit.

  • by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @02:53PM (#64436628) Homepage

    So I am not going to address the privacy concerns, those are pretty evident. My issue is that it doesn't even do what it claims to do, which is protect kids. So let's say all the legitimate porn sites follow this law, what is a kid looking for porn to do? They look at the less legitimate sites. The sites that are more likely to leak and/or sell their data and password. The sites that are more likely to have malware. So the kid still see porn, but is less safe while doing it.

    • by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      What makes a porn site legitimate?

      he sites that are more likely to leak and/or sell their data and password.

      It's like you've only just now gotten on the internet for the first time. Do you think that sharing your data with 'legitimate' porn sites means you'll be protected from that stuff discreetly?

      The sites that are more likely to have malware.

      Because nobody has ever gotten malware from a "legitimate" porn site.

      • What makes a porn site legitimate?

        I am no expert on this but, I assume that "legitimate" sites are ones that have permission to display the content they are hosting. Those tend to be the bigger-name establishments (but there have been well-known exceptions) as opposed to fly-by-night places that know they will get DMCA takedown notices but then they just start again with a new domain. Since they aren't paying for the content, they don't need much revenue to make a profit. Of course maybe the OP means something else. But there's a clear

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

            Man, I'd completely forgotten about those assholes, but that's the exact kind of scenario I was thinking of.

          • by jythie ( 914043 )
            Kinda sounds like you read a few blog posts where everyone agrees with each other and now you 'know how porn works', and have never talked to anyone who actually works in the industry or knows the first thing about it in your life.
          • I do not know enough to comment about what actually happens. All of my knowledge of the topic of porn comes from reading slashdot (and maybe the occasional asking for a friend or something like that). However, as you say, the "platform" sites have made at least a modicum of an effort to appear to appear as if they have the rights to all of their content. Whether they are doing a good job or whether it's just a veneer, that's still different than the sites that don't even claim such a thing.
    • Not really.a sensible argument. Sites like Pornhub are far from "safe", and kids aren't necessarily going to turn to Tor or something to get at snuff porn or whatever. They'll just lie about their age and/or use password aggregators as they did in the past to get on paid porn sites, which overall will have more tame content than the freaky amateur stuff on Pornhub.

    • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      How many times are people going to try to push this argument. By this logic we should not restrict anything that might be harmful.

      Cigarettes are obviously bad for kids but if you don't let them walk in to the C-store to get a pack what is the child smoker going to do? They look for some less legitimate source. Those darts are more likely to be laced with whatever or have harder drugs in them!

      Yes it should stupid because it is stupid. Its likely saying we should legalize cocaine because it would take the mo

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Weirdly, none of the .EU porn sites I like are following these laws.

          So, uh...er......can you list out some of those sites?

          You know...just as examples?

          ;)

      • by dirk ( 87083 )

        So you think if a kid goes to google and searches "free porn" they are not going to find it after this law goes into affect? They will get results and after the top results don't work because of this law, they will end up on page 5 of the results, which will lead to incredibly sketchy sites. They will end up signing up for web forums that don't follow this law (either because they just don't care or they are not based in the US), where their password may be harvested and they files that are uploaded may con

      • by unrtst ( 777550 )

        Its likely saying we should legalize cocaine because it would take the money out of drug crime. Sure it would probably make life safer for a small minority of coke heads but keeping contraban status probably keeps the vast vast majority of the public from every trying a highly addictive and dangerous substance.

        I think you hit the nail on the head here - IMO, that is a very similar situation. But I _WOULD_ argue in favor of legalizing most illicit drugs. I won't go into those arguments - they're well known. One major difference though - age verification is established and straight forward for in person purchases, and those drug sales would still have age restrictions.

        IMO, age restrictions on the web simply don't have any good solution at this time. Requiring every site to implement the restrictions is, IMO, passin

    • That's not much different than a kid trying to buy alcohol or cigarettes. It's illegal for them so they don't go to the legitimate business, but instead find something that skirts the law.

      The real issue is that there's no way to know if someone is actually in Texas and websites outside of the US aren't going to care either way just like a US website that only does business in the US isn't going to care about European GDPR requirements. Even if a person is physically in Texas, their VPN end point may not
  • by Harvey Manfrenjenson ( 1610637 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @02:58PM (#64436650)

    It's about restricting access to webpages with "adult content", which includes, for example... information about abortion, information about LGBTQ issues, and probably some other stuff I haven't thought of. These are the kinds of webpages that typically get flagged by "adult content" filters. They'll be difficult to access for minors, and they'll leave an electronic trail if accessed by an adult. Potentially quite useful for Texas DAs, if they decide to start arresting people who leave the state to get an abortion.

    • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @03:08PM (#64436682)

      It's about control. People are looking at porn in the privacy of their homes and that makes Jesus weep. They're already working on censoring the internet because people might google abortion. https://www.theverge.com/2023/... [theverge.com]

      From the Help! social media is censoring us! crowd.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 )

        Americans love to take freedom away from each other. They also like to go on about how free America is and how great that is, not even realizing the hypocrisy. Each person has some justification in their mind as to why the thing they want to deny to others (or force on others) is a special case that makes it ok.

        Conservatives are not the only guilty party. Of course, they are guilty, and are keen to legislate their view of morality on to everyone else. But liberals do the same, wanting to deny citizens t

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Ironically I doubt Jesus would have had an issue with porn, going by the description of him and his antics in the Bible.

    • Surveillance is the big thing here. This ends internet anonymity for most people (who won't have the money or skills to use a VPN safely). Your information is now on file with the State of Texas and they know everything you're accessing.

      Now if they want to destroy a political opponent it's as easy as getting that data leaked. This massively increases their ability to track dissidents too.

      It's classic "think of the children" stuff where essential liberty is given up for a false sense of security. It'
      • A VPN is dirt cheap and push button. Ease of use or cost is of minimal concern. Your biggest concern is whether or not you actually trust the provider because they have your data and nothing is stopping them. Your post is further idiotic because Texas has none of your information. The porn website does though, and once again it's a matter of how much you trust them with that.

        Your issue is only a problem if that state is authenticating the person and keeping the records. I very much doubt that if this wer
        • Your post is further idiotic because Texas has none of your information. The porn website does though, and once again it's a matter of how much you trust them with that.

          I never said "Texas has your information", I said "you've left an electronic trail"-- which, as you yourself acknowledge, is in the hands of a company that you may or may not trust. If they receive a subpoena for that information from the DA, what do you suppose they'll do? Call up their legal team and fight to quash the subpoena? Or just quietly hand over the information?

          (Also, as I've pointed out elsewhere, there is nothing in the language of HB 1181 to stop the website owners from outright *selling* y

    • "You suspect". Well, that's nice.
  • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @02:58PM (#64436652)

    Small government.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Are you on board with a small government?
      >No, not at all
      So shut the fuck up about it.

  • Technical measures always circumvent legal measures on the internet. The internet community still can't get rid of sites like Kiwi Farms and Stormfront, why do you think videos of consenting adults should be more restricted than them? This is also why crypto still exists.
  • by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @03:25PM (#64436740) Journal

    Just say something is "to protect children" and you can ban anything

    • by Jerrry ( 43027 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @03:35PM (#64436782)

      Just say something is "to protect children" and you can ban anything

      You forgot the loophole to that moral loophole: You can ban anything to protect the children as long as it isn't assault weapons.

      • Just say something is "to protect children" and you can ban anything

        You forgot the loophole to that moral loophole: You can ban anything to protect the children as long as it isn't assault weapons.

        Children need access to assault weapons to protect them from the predators! It's like you've neve spoken to a Republican.

      • Children can't purchase assault weapons.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @03:27PM (#64436744)

    The Republican Supreme Court is a joke that isn't funny.

    They call themselves "originalists" and the only thing they have a nexus to an origin is that they were all hatched the same.

    Neither the elimination of Roe, the continued attack on people's rights, states' rights, etc. nor anything else speak to anything "originalist."

    The founding fathers would be turning in their graves, and THIS republican supreme court would dig them up and put stakes in them so "them's quit turning."

    We have the most corrupt self-dealing judge, and a bunch of other pieces of crap. This is our lauded supreme court.

    The Republican Supreme Court, a result of the Republican Party, is no joke. It's not funny. It's what will destroy our democracy.

    • ... result of the Republican Party ...

      While that party's double-think is easy to spot, the Democrat Party is no better.

      2023 was the year of "everything's politicized" and it's true. It's rampant in the US because everyone from the dog-catcher to president must bend to the vox populi. But a cultural shift over the last decade have changed the political consequences. There are a couple of reasons: Old whipping boys such as communism, blacks, illegal immigrants, violent crime, drug-use and welfare mothers don't hold the voter's attention as m

    • "Neither the elimination of Roe, the continued attack on people's rights, states' rights, etc. nor anything else speak to anything "originalist."" - RARELY has something this ignorant been so publicly posted on Slashdot... I see why you posted as an anon coward. Even the justices who wrote the Roe v Wade decision KNEW it was not in the Constitution; they tried to justify their ruling by claiming abortion was somehow covered by the "penumbras and emanations" of the rights in the Constitution. That was THEIR

  • An adult store is going to check IDs before allowing access. A nightclub or bar is going to check your ID before serving. An adult entertainment venue is *definitely* going to check your ID before letting you enter. In the modern day, some of those ID checks will involve basic electronic validation (eg, bar code scanning) to ensure that this is a valid ID, which opens the possibility up of automated data collection and privacy issues.

    The electronic world can and should develop a parallel for this, because t

    • just ask for your SSN as part of the ID check!

    • The "real world" places may check your ID but do not record it (and they won't usually check IDs at all if the customer is obviously an adult). There may be a tech solution to prevent recording the ID, but that assumes these laws are being passed in good faith (or will always be used in a good-faith manner). The problem is that that once this infrastructure is in place, it can be used to restrict all sorts of sites that the government simply doesn't like.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • by PPH ( 736903 )

          I don't know about your passport card, but mine has a scannable barcode.

          Now how a bar or liquor store would validate a passport card number, drivers license number, etc. I don't know. I could easily generate the Code 3 of 9 string that agrees with whatever fake info I put on the front.

        • Scanning is not common where I live. I am rarely carded, and when I am it is a quick glance. To the extent it happens, it's at the discretion of the establishment.

      • The law in question (HB 1181) contains precisely zero language about what the porn company is supposed to *do* with the age-verification info once they've collected it. There's certainly nothing in there about deleting it. As far as I can tell, they can hire a Goodyear blimp and display the information at the Super Bowl, and it's perfectly legal. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

    • Kinda.

      For an adult bookstore or bar, it is a physical location where the proprietors are under obligation to control the activities going on their property.

      It's kinda presumed the owner of an electronic device is also under obligation to control the goings own for their property. The particulars of some "parallel" makes no difference- you are asking for third parties to control what happens on your device, without any arrangement to do so.

      Think carefully about this.

    • This shows a shocking lack of understanding how digital authentication works.

      This is the end of internet anonymity. Not just in porn, but in the entire internet, forever. Here's why.

      When you verify identity at a night club, it's done once and they don't record you name or anything about you. It is anonymous.

      When you verify identity online, because you aren't there in person, that system logs the access to your name, address, SSN, every other shred of information that exists about you.

      Including your IP ad

  • This is no different than having to show your ID to buy a Playboy magazine back in the day. There is plenty of precedent for governments enforcing age restrictions for porn. Putting it on the internet does not change that.
    • IT's not remotely the same thing. Online authentication and authorization follow your every transaction, your every anonymous /. post, everything you do. Such authentication tied to your IP address and full name, address, birthdate, SSN, and every other detail about you, your political preferences too.

      It means the end of ALL online anonymity. And you fools are willing to do it so some teenagers won't be exposed to some horrible, horrible nudity.

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 )

      It's quite different. Showing your ID to a store clerk is a lot different than doing the nearly impossible task of verifying your identification online. Not only is there no practical way to actually implement this for sites, many (most?) people don't want to give their ID to ANY site on the internet, much less a sketchy porn one.

      What it leads to is having some sort of 3rd party verification system where a person could verify their age to a website, but now that means that verification system (which would

  • The age verification pages should provide a list of politicians who made this possible so Texans know who to thank.

  • The Supreme Court only takes a very limited number of cases per year and the justices spend a lot of time on each, since what they rule will be the basis for numerous rulings on many future cases for years (often decades) to come. As a result, the court often leaves rulings of the lower courts in place (even when the majority of justices might want to rule on the issue) until [1] a case comes along that narrowly defines the issue unclouded by other matters, so the ruling will be clear, or [2] multiple lower

  • Born and raised so of course the first porn I saw was in TX. First it was a Playboy a friend had. Then I got my own issue of Playboy - just one. They were hard to get for youngsters but obviously not impossible. I quickly learned that convenience store clerks didn't care as much as the people working B. Dalton or Waldenbooks.

    I saw my first porn movie when I was in high school too - Betamax! Borrowed it from a friend. His parents' tape maybe? I don't know.

    Some years later I saw protesters in front of 7-11 b

  • Where I live, online identity checks are a joke. You need to provide somebody's ID, but they don't actually check it is you.
    In the old days, when say opening a bank account, you would show a difficult-to-forge document with photograph, or signature, and somebody would check you matched.
    But now, online, I just give my drivers license number, or national healthcare number, and nobody verifies that they belong to me. Too hard.

    How does Texas work? I'm guessing their is no electronic cryptograph

  • ... perfectly fine with de-platforming and banning unpopular ideas (after all, what does that have to do with free speech), but ... keep your hands off my porn!
  • Right: pr0n is HORRIBLE, and needs to be banned.

    Guns? Nobody gonna take away our freedumbs.

  • That the party that wants to restrict access to pron on the internet is quite happy endorsing a presidential candidate^w^wdictator who had an affair with a porn star (while his 3rd wife was pregnant) and committed fraud to cover that up.

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...