By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court has sided with Texas in the case of *Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton*, upholding a law requiring age verification for adult websites. The court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the right of adults to access content deemed obscene for minors without first providing proof of age, opening the door for similar age-gating measures nationwide. This decision, reached with a 6-3 majority, effectively revisits a 2004 ruling and attributes the change to advances in technology. The ruling highlights the absence of a strict scrutiny standard for age verification, potentially affecting privacy.
Read the original article here
Porn age-gating is the future of the internet, thanks to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s decision regarding age verification for adult websites in Texas isn’t just about porn; it’s a seismic shift in how we access information online. The ruling, leaning towards a six-to-three majority, essentially greenlights states to require identification for accessing content they deem unsuitable for minors. While the immediate focus is on adult websites, this sets a precedent that has far-reaching consequences. The First Amendment’s protections are being reinterpreted to allow states to regulate access to information, opening the door to a more restrictive internet. This impacts the free exchange of ideas and, critically, the anonymity we’ve come to expect.
This isn’t just about keeping kids away from explicit material. The underlying agenda is more complex. The states, through this ruling, gain the power to define what content is age-restricted. Websites offering LGBTQ information, abortion resources, and even discussions about social issues could be next in line for age-gating. The implication is clear: the state can control the flow of information, determining what citizens can access and under what conditions. This extends beyond pornography; any content deemed potentially harmful, or simply not aligned with the state’s values, could face restrictions. This sets the stage for a more censored and controlled online experience.
The argument that this is simply about protecting children is a smokescreen. The conservative agenda, fueled by a desire to establish a “Christian State,” is leveraging concerns about minors to push broader restrictions. The goal isn’t just to protect kids from explicit content; it is to control information flow and identity verification. The aim isn’t solely about protecting children from pornography. The ruling allows for content the state considers undesirable to be blocked behind a verification wall. The tools of censorship are being honed, paving the way for limitations on free speech and the erosion of online privacy. The potential for abuse is enormous.
The implications are far-reaching. Imagine a future where every website requires ID verification. This doesn’t only pertain to porn; any content they deem “adult” could be blocked behind ID verification. This ruling paves the way for states to limit access to information. Websites could be forced to collect and store sensitive data, creating a digital trail that could be exploited. This presents serious privacy concerns, given the potential for data breaches and misuse of personal information. The ruling could lead to databases containing our online activities, making it easier to track, monitor, and potentially punish people for their online behavior.
The issue goes further; the digital landscape is evolving. The very nature of “pornography” is subjective. What is considered offensive or inappropriate varies greatly depending on the viewpoint. Because of this, any type of content could be labeled pornographic. This decision could allow the government to gate any type of content it deems undesirable. The definition of “harmful” and “adult” is broad and easily manipulated to silence dissenting views. The slippery slope is real. This begins with porn, but the path leads to restricting access to all sorts of content.
The enforcement challenges are significant, however. VPNs and other anonymity tools will continue to be used, rendering some restrictions ineffective. Many teenagers will be able to bypass the age-gating. However, the most significant threat isn’t the inability to stop everyone from accessing age-restricted content; it’s the collection of our information and the chilling effect it will have on free speech. This ruling is a major step towards a more restricted and surveilled internet. We are trading away freedom for perceived safety, and the long-term consequences could be severe.