桃子视频

WASHINGTON 鈥� The 桃子视频, 桃子视频of Texas, and Quinn Emanuel today filed a in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) and other plaintiffs in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, arguing that the age verification provision in Texas鈥檚 H.B 1181 violates the First Amendment by improperly burdening adults鈥� right to access sexual content online.

H.B. 1181 requires any website that publishes content one-third or more of which is 鈥渉armful to minors鈥� 鈥� a broad category that includes virtually any explicit content 鈥� to force their visitors to provide digital IDs or other proof of age before they can access the published material, regardless of what is on the other two-thirds of the site.

鈥淎dults in America have a First Amendment right to read about sexual health, see R-rated movies, watch porn, and otherwise access information about sex if they want to. They should be allowed to exercise that right as they see fit, without having to worry about exposing their personal identifying information in the process,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the 桃子视频Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. 鈥淩ather than requiring adults to give up their privacy in order to watch and read content the government doesn鈥檛 like, legislators should focus on shaping a safer internet through things like voluntary content filters, which give control to people, not the government.鈥�

Texas claims this provision is about protecting minors from accessing sexual content deemed harmful to them, not regulating disfavored content, but it does not merely restrict minors鈥� access. It also restricts adults鈥� access, requiring them to identify themselves online and burdening their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights to see sexual content or any other material on a regulated site. As the brief explains, requiring individuals to verify their ages before accessing this protected speech robs people of anonymity, and threatens to bar individuals鈥攆or example, those who lack government identification or whose age is misidentified by the relevant technology鈥攆rom accessing certain websites altogether. Such a restriction is not necessary given the availability of other options, like content filtering, that could accomplish the government鈥檚 goal while imposing less of a burden on speech.

鈥淲hile Texas鈥� law may sound reasonable on its face, in practice, it is extraordinarily burdensome and invasive, effectively deterring adults from accessing legal content,鈥� said Alison Boden, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition. 鈥淭o make matters worse, this law 鈥� and ones like it 鈥� fail at their stated goal of protecting children online, despite forcing adult content creators and consumers to operate under the threat of surveillance and censorship.鈥�

At the same time, the law will not accomplish its stated goal. Because the law only applies if one-third of a site鈥檚 content is explicit, social media sites that offer much of the same content, but as a smaller proportion of their total offerings, avoid the law鈥檚 requirement. And search engines are exempted entirely, meaning minors can access exactly the same sexual content online via such sites. Moreover, the law鈥檚 requirement that regulated sites issue unscientific health warnings about the negative effects of exposure to pornography illustrate the state鈥檚 distaste for the regulated speakers.

Before the case reached the Supreme Court, a district court briefly blocked the law from being enforced, concluding that the law鈥檚 age verification provision would unconstitutionally chill the speech of adults. However, a divided Fifth Circuit panel vacated that injunction, reasoning that the age verification provisions鈥� burden on adults鈥� First Amendment rights merely has to have some rational basis鈥搉ot face strict scrutiny鈥揵ecause the aim is to protect children. Unless the Supreme Court issues a reversal, this decision will overturn decades of precedent protecting the free speech rights of adults.

In prior cases brought by the ACLU, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that requiring users to verify their age to access protected content is unconstitutional where there are less restrictive alternatives available, like filtering software. In Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, also meant to protect children, violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech in part because of the burden it imposed on adults. In Ashcroft v. ACLU, the Court held that a law almost identical to the Texas law had to satisfy strict scrutiny because it restricted adults鈥� access to protected sexual speech. Where a less-restrictive alternative exists鈥攆or example, the voluntary installation of filtering software on minors鈥� devices鈥攖he government cannot impose age verification on adults in the name of protecting children.

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is one of several cases in which the 桃子视频has urged courts to reject age verification schemes that would burden the free speech rights of internet users as part of the organization鈥檚 long tradition of defending online free expression.

The ACLU鈥檚 brief in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is a part of the ACLU鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.