There is an interesting free speech ruling in Texas in favor of the adult entertainment site, Pornhub. Senior U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled that a Texas law requiring age-verification and warning labels about the alleged dangers of porn contravenes the First Amendment.
Pornography sites have long been a target for politicians with an unique alliance of religious conservatives and feminists seeking to ban or limit access to material. In American Booksellers Association, Inc., et al. v. Hudnut, 771 F. 2nd 323 (1985), the Seventh Circuit issued an important ruling striking down an Indianapolis ordinance that was the product of one such campaign by feminist scholars who argued that pornography leads to violence and denigration of women. The ordinance declared such films as obscene due to “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women, whether in pictures or in words.”
On the other side, there is obviously a sizable number of citizens. Pornhub and Xvideos are ranked in the top ten most visited sites. However, the millions of consumers on these sites are the least likely to publicly oppose efforts to curtail or bar their availability to the general public.
The lawsuit challenged the Texas law, which was set to go into effect Sept. 1, 2023, and would have required sites to use “reasonable age verification methods” to “verify that an individual attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older.” In addition, pornography sites would have been forced to display a “Texas Health and Human Services Warning” in at least 14-point font. One of those warnings reads, “Pornography increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography.” The warning must be accompanied by a national toll-free number for people with mental health disorders.
Judge Ezra ruled that “H.B. 1181 is unconstitutional on its face.” The court found that “the statute is not narrowly tailored and chills the speech of Plaintiffs and adults who wish to access sexual materials . . . [it] is not narrowly tailored because it substantially regulates protected speech, is severely underinclusive, and uses overly restrictive enforcement methods.”
Notably, the court recognizes that “the state has a legitimate goal in protecting children from sexually explicit material online.” Moreover, the court accepts that there are “viable and constitutional means to achieve Texas’s goal, and nothing in this order prevents the state from pursuing those means.”
The decision is well analyzed and well supported. While the age verification presents a closer question, I am particularly concerned over the compelled speech element of the warnings. Notably, many conservatives supported the challenge in 303 Creative v. Elenis, where the state of Colorado required a website design to not only offer services to same-sex couples but to remove a statement on her website that was not consistent with the state’s views. Just as religious persons have free speech rights in refusing to adhere to certain policies, non-religious or secular persons (or companies) have free speech rights in pursuing their own counter values. Here businesses are being told to express views with which they disagree. Indeed, these statements have been contested for years.
The court also addresses the continued use of vague obscenity standards to curtail adult material. While pornography is not the preferred subject for free speech advocates, it is an area that has long raised free speech issues. Governments often target the least popular forms of speech. While these sites appear very popular, few want to be publicly seen as supporting sites widely seen as sinful or sexist.
I do view this law as containing unconstitutional elements. However, this is likely to be just the start to a long series of challenges and appeals. These laws have been enacted in other states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia and Utah.
Poster : George, is the only one on here that seems to know what the Constitution actually represents!!! More power for the people, not for the Government… every single law created can and will be weaponized against the free people!!! Taxed till your death is only a small fraction of that weaponization! You will pay for not being free in many more ways than just one! George is 100% correct their our children not the Governments!
Children of the Porn
it is the responsibility of the parents and the adult internet subscriber to prevent their minor children from accessing “unwanted” websites, whatever that is? another solution could be to for the internet access provider to ask for a list of the members of their household and if any children are in the home and are using the internet then just put a company “filter” on their service preventing access to any porn or other offensive sites. actually, as a matter of fact, the kids are smart and computer/internet savvy unlike most adults and they already know they can get around the States wanting age verification by using a VPN which will not show the home I.P. address but the address of the VPN that is always in another State or even a country outside the USA. when the state of Utah enacted this law and Pornhub said they wouldn’t comply but just not allow anyone from Utah access, they also publically told the citizens of Utah to use a VPN to get access without signing up for any service or violating Constitutional rights.
Have you been to the movies lately? I got comp’ed two tickets to “Strays” Rated R, about dogs. The children of all ages with or without parents ignored the rating. The movie itself was a string of vulgarity and the previews of up coming attractions seemed to be a celebration of the “F” word. Children, tweens, teens were there with their parents, enjoying it.
Put on a disguise, and see what America has become. There are no more guardrails, except in your mind!
“Judge Ezra is wrong. Porn, alcohol, cigarettes all need age limits.”
Some of you either did not read the post or the ruling, or you’re being obtuse.
“Notably, the court recognizes that ‘the state has a legitimate goal in protecting children from sexually explicit material online.’ Moreover, the court accepts that there are ‘viable and constitutional means to achieve Texas’s goal, and nothing in this order prevents the state from pursuing those means.’”
Texas used the protection of children to shoehorn unconstitutional restrictions of adults. That is a shameful, dishonest tactic used by both the Left and the Right.
It strikes me as an off-kilter opening that age-restricted material is a violation of 1st Amendment rights. Have we restricted a child’s right to not drink bleach because we lock the lower cabinets? It can be argued in previous SCOTUS rulings that the obvious & direct protection of the public (you cannot yell “Fire! Fire! in a crowded theater) is the one of very few limits to Free Speech, but let me ask you this: IS not limiting the age of users of porn a direct & obvious protection of public well-being? Regular pornography use has been widely documented to correlate with sexual dysfunction, depression, inability to interact with the opposite sex & lower testosterone. Are these not public dangers you should protect developing (usually boys) from? Is this not yelling “Fire!” in a crowded building? MEDIA has caused us, culturally, great pain in the last 25 years. WE have lost much due to a completely unfettered media. There doesn’t even seem to be any such thing as “media malpractice “, but there damned sure should be. Intent to lie, intent to harm, intent to interfere in elections—-should ALL be punishable media malpractice. And I mean by being imprisoned, not some fine a behemoth corporation can pay. And you know that intent is difficult to prove, which is appropriate.No, I DO NOT believe the protection of children from pornography is a violation of their 1A rights because it IS a direct & obvious harm to them.
And not to be rude, but the judge strikes me as someone who watches a lot of porn.
Children need protection now more than ever. We already live in a world where the government can profile you with the press of a button. They can already tell who the large consumers of porn are via your IP address so why hesitate to tie your ID to the activity?
Not just that, but foreign cartels are beginning to blackmail porn addicts. The best porn is replaying memories of real life in the privacy of your own brain.
We need laws to protect children because parents give children unrestricted access to the internet in order to keep, up with their peers at school. Making a law as I read somewhere will give parents cover: “You can’t have a phone until you are 18”.
PORNOGRAPHY AND SUBSTANCE INGESTION ARE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
That you don’t like freedom does not bear.
That some believe themselves superior and in command does not bear.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals, while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating the maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
Americans are free to engage in individual freedom, free enterprise, and the “pursuit of happiness,” whatever forms those freedoms take.
Individuals may not cause bodily injury or property damage, and the Constitution, while providing security and infrastructure to individuals, free enterprises, and industries, shall not facilitate the causation of bodily injury or property damage.
In so far as an act does not cause bodily injury or property damage to others, that act is a right, freedom, privilege, or immunity provided to individuals by the Constitution.
To facilitate your understanding of the intent of the Founders, the Framers and the Constitution, consider the form of the 9th Amendment below, understanding that the 9th Amendment may take many alternative forms:
_______________________
9th Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of pornography, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the right of the people to ingest substances.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If you cannot find the specific prohibition of an action in the Constitution, it is fully constitutional through the 9th Amendment.
That you don’t approve of pornography, substance ingestion, etc. does not bear, as those rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities are provided to individuals by the 9th Amendment.
To wit,
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Look at Puerto Rico….75% there are drug addicts. Everyone with an ounce of energy and integrity abandoned the island. Is that what freedom is all about? Self-indulgence? Slacking? The Constitution’s rationale, cited in the Preamble, is to look after the General Wellfare (wellbeing). That means it values freedoms that are beneficial to society over those that tend to undermine it.
The Texas Law being shot down doesn’t require ironclad proof-of-age, and it could if they really wanted to. I think CA will become the first state to enforce fraud-proof age determination on the tech industry, because CA cares about kids growing up to be independent, self-actualized adults. Not so sure about TX, where getting them born is paramount, but afterwards “not our problem”.
“Look at Puerto Rico….75% there are drug addicts.”
One has to wonder about your data sources.
That you are incapable of adapting to or accommodating freedom does not bear.
The Founders and Framers established America understanding that responsible and good people would be required to cause it to succeed.
Freedom is there for Americans to embrace and assimilate; abusing freedom is not advisable but is always an obvious option for free people.
That you don’t like drug addicts does not bear.
Americans are free to be drug addicts; of course they won’t.
Most Americans will not commit suicide either; some will.
Americans are not free to cause bodily injury, property damage or otherwise harm to others.
It is the responsibility of government to provide security – freedom from harm – and infrastructure (i.e. general Welfare – all, or the whole, well proceed).
General welfare – all, or the whole, well proceed – is effected through the provision of infrastructure.
Not individual, particular or specific welfare, or favoritism or charity, but “general Welfare.”
Children are wards and in the custody of parents; children are not the property or responsibility of the state.
George is the only one on here that seems to know what the Constitution actually represents!!! More power for the people, not for the Government… every single law created can and will be weaponized against the free people!!! Taxed till your death is only a small fraction of that weaponization! You will pay for not being free in many more ways than just one!
Although, I oppose most forms of censorship, it’s amazing that few people focus on censoring violent content.
Americans are so obsessed with concealing sexual images but few care about censoring violence. America has a huge violence problem.
“The warning must be accompanied by a national toll-free number for people with mental health disorders.”
~+~
Call 1 (976) SEX CHAT
— a public service of PornHub
Musical satirist Tom Lehrer thoroughly explored the pornography issue in his classic song from the 1960s. Little has substantively changed since Tom wrote it.
Thanks Feldman. Very topical. He’s a mensch – notice how he completely covers the field without using any profanity, and for an appreciative audience which is not dressed at all shabbily – all the guys in a jacket and tie. I’m afraid those days are gone, on both counts.
Pornography sites have long been a target for politicians with an unique alliance of religious conservatives and feminists.
Perhaps not unique in its literal sense meaning one-of-a-kind. I can think of another such cause: keeping men out of women’s sports, locker rooms, and bathrooms. Perhaps also, laws against prostitution.
I am particularly concerned over the compelled speech element of the warnings.
Have the compelled warnings on cigarette packages and cigarette ads been challenged? From a quick search it seems that compelled images have been ruled unconstitutional, but what about the compelled anti-tobacco warnings on the packages and advertisements?
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/fda-rule-mandating-graphic-warnings-cigarettes-blocked-by-judge-2022-12-08/#:~:text=The%20warnings%20must%20occupy%20the,promote%20an%20anti%2Dsmoking%20message.
Judge Ezra is wrong. Porn, alcohol, cigarettes all need age limits. Ezra is so open minded that his brain fell out.
Free from judgment, free morals, free from God. Free to? Free to destroy yourself.
National decline is nothing more than the sum total of personal decline. And Judge Ezra is pointing the way.
Maybe national decline is incentivized by national action.
Cradle to grave care by government leads to many of the problems we face.
DM:
Everybody’s racist in your sense, Dennis, and that’s defined as anyone who disagrees ever so slightly with your point of view. You aren’t to be totally faulted however. Our own Supreme Court engaged in the bigotry of low expectations for years tolerating such unconstitutional ideas like affirmative action and the crazy notion of disparate effect drawing the inevitable conclusion that to oppose these emascualting ideas was “racist.”. So yes everyone is racist, ie morally inferior, ie less pure in the ideology of the Left. Man is truly “religious man”; the only difference being whether he seeks the truth in religion or power in religion.
So Dennis, was your comment “Fani gonna show DJT how it’s done down heah in Jawja” racial or racist?
But hey, we are all just dumb rednecks, so we don’t see through the fact that you put “racial’ in quotations but not the word you added—“slur”. There is no difference when you throw in that word. You added the word slur. You decided it was a slur, without any basis or argument other than “i said it is”. So now you know the distinction AND the difference. Irony….its a funny thing isn’t it.
Instead of obfuscating, why don’t you explain how it was a racial slur? You are obligated by reason to say exactly how, because you called this person a racist, which actually IS a slur.
I see now why you don’t respond much, and just choose to sling your plagiarized keyboard diarrhea around instead of engaging in discussion.
“face an intelligent Black woman”—-Dennis
I’m curious why you felt compelled to describe her as “an intelligent” black woman.
Is that something like a “clean and bright” African American running for office?
Lets dig deeper…
“an intelligent Black woman in the courtroom for the first time.”—-Dennis
Tell us, Dennis, is that racial or racist?
In case you don’t get it yet, which I’m fairly certain it’s true… Context is everything. For instance, I have used the “what you talking about Willis? Many times what made it funny in this instance, to anyone other than a race, baiter, like yourself, was that the prosecutors name is Willis, not that she was black. Most of us know that the original Willis was white.
For instance
UNCF & NAACP. Both of these contain a word that is construed by many as racist.
Would you say these organizations are bigoted against African Americans.
Maybe, calling them African Americans is insensitive and racist. After all, Vespucci was a racist.
I will say this, you would’ve made a great poster boy for the old UNCF commercials.
“A mind is a terrible thing to waste”
Professor, your proof-reader is incompetent.
“. . . .who argued that pornography lead to violence and subrogation of women. “
I wondered about Virginia’s similar during the General Assembly session. Seems my misgivings were well-founded.