Supreme Court upholds Texas age verification law
for adult websites
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld a Texas law Friday that requires adult websites to verify the age of their users, concluding that the policy does not violate the First Amendment.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court deemed the law “appropriately tailored,” backing a prior Fifth Circuit decision that found states should be able to prevent youngsters from viewing smut online.
“The statute advances the State’s important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content,” conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion.
“And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data.”
Texas passed the law, House Bill 1181, in 2023, applying to companies where one-third of the content is considered detrimental to minors.
The measure stipulates that websites take “reasonable” age verification steps and levies a $1,000-a-day penalty on violators.
$1000 a day is a great deal for Porn Hub, they can make that much in a few minutes.
Pornhub had stopped operations in Texas and other states with similar laws due to concerns it couldn’t comply with the age verification policy. At least 24 states had passed similar age verification laws that had been blocked by the lower courts.
The Free Speech Coalition, which represents the adult entertainment industry, had sued to nix HB 1181. The New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the law, prompting the Supreme Court challenge.
The plaintiffs had expressed fears that the age verification rules would lead to identity theft and cause other other compliance problems.
But Thomas wrote that the “specific verification methods that H. B. 1181 permits are … plainly legitimate.”
“Verification can take place on the covered website itself or through a third-party service,” he noted. “Other age-restricted services, such as online gambling, alcohol and tobacco sales, and car rentals, rely on the same methods.”
Thomas also brushed aside arguments that, due to the stigma of pornography use, adults would not want to submit to age verification, suggesting that third-party services can ensure adequate privacy.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for the left flank of the court. She acknowledged that “[n]o one doubts that the distribution of sexually explicit speech to children, of the sort involved here, can cause great harm.”
But she argued that the Texas law went too far.
“Speech that is obscene for minors is often not so for adults. For them, the category of obscene—and therefore unprotected speech—is narrower,” she wrote. “So adults have a constitutional right to view the very same speech that a State may prohibit for children.”
“What if Texas could do better—what if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults’ constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech?”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican who is vying for the Senate next year, hailed the decision as a “major victory for children, parents, and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography.”
“Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures,” he said in a statement. “I will continue to enforce the law against any organization that refuses to take the necessary steps to protect minors from explicit materials.”
Justices had held oral arguments in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton back in January. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito went viral for asking whether erotica powerhouse Pornhub carries cultural content similar to “the old Playboy magazine.”
“You have essays there by the modern-day equivalent of Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr.?” Alito asked counsel at one point to audible laughs, recalling the longstanding joke about men buying Hugh Hefner’s venerable title “for the articles.”
=====================================================================================
Supreme Court rules in favor of Maryland parents who want to pull kids from classes with LGBTQ-themed books
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who sued a school board over its refusal to allow elementary school children to be taken out of classes with LGBTQ-themed storybooks.
In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines Friday, the justices overturned a lower court ruling that found the parents needed to show that their kids were being coerced to act differently than their religious beliefs. The high court concluded that the parents “have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction” because they “are likely to succeed in their challenge to the Board’s policies.
“The ruling is not the final decision in the matter, as the case will head back to the lower courts for further review.
“A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
“And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.”
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) approved certain LGBTQ-themed curriculum books in late 2022. Initially, MCPS allowed an opt-out for parents with religious concerns, but by March of 2023, it reversed course, citing concerns about absenteeism and administrative burdens.
A group of parents from Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox faiths sued the school district, arguing the lack of an opt-out system trampled upon their religious rights as parents.
The reading material in question included “Pride Puppy,” a picture book aimed at three- and four-year-olds that instructs kids to look for items they might find at a gay pride parade, such as underwear, lip rings, drag kings, and late gay liberation activist Marsha Johnson, whom critics noted was once a sex worker.
Other books that were part of the curriculum delved into transgenderism — such as “Intersection Allies,” meant for K-5 students, explains transgender and non-binary concepts, while asking the question, “What pronouns fit you?”
“What Are Your Words?” tells students in a similar age range that one’s pronouns can “change like the weather” and follows one child who briefly embraces “they/them” pronouns.
In “Born Ready,” a little boy gets confused about how his sister is transitioning into a boy, prompting the mother to inform him that “not everything needs to make sense.”
The MCPS board provided teachers with guidance to inform students that “not everyone is a boy or girl,” according to the plaintiffs.
“Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative,” Alito wrote. “They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.””High school students may understand that widespread approval of a practice does not necessarily mean that everyone should accept it, but very young children are most unlikely to appreciate that fine point,” he added.
“[T]he storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender. And the Board has specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes far beyond mere ‘exposure.'”
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the dissent, claiming the majority “invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes ‘contrary to the religious principles’ that parents wish to instill in their children.”
“Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent’s religious beliefs,” she argued. “If that is sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny, then little is not.”
“The result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools. Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.
“Sotomayor also argued that the Supreme Court has never previously “held that mere exposure to concepts inconsistent with one’s religious beliefs could give rise to a First Amendment claim.”
Justices had largely signed their leanings in the case during oral arguments in April. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who described himself as a “lifelong resident” of Montgomery Country, expressed that he was “a bit mystified” over the controversy.
“The other Maryland counties have opt-outs for all sorts of things,” he said during oral arguments.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon applauded the ruling, hailing it as “a major win for religious liberty and parental rights.”
“The Court rightfully held that schools can’t shut parents out or disregard their religious obligations to their children,” she said on X. “A great day for parents and education champions!”
=========================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment