Supreme Court Upholds Texas Law Aimed at Blocking Kids from Seeing Pornography Online
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law aimed at blocking children from seeing online pornography.
Nearly half of the states have passed similar laws requiring adult website users to verify their ages to access pornographic material. The laws come as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access online porn, including hardcore obscene material.
The court split along ideological lines in the 6-3 ruling. It's a loss for an adult-entertainment industry trade group called the Free Speech Coalition, which challenged the Texas law.
Th majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, found the measure didn't seriously restrict adults' free-speech rights. 'Adults have the right to access speech obscene only to minors … but adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification,' he wrote.
In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court should have used a higher legal standard in weighing whether the law creates free-speech problems for adults. 'I would demand Texas show more, to ensure it is not undervaluing the interest in free expression,' she wrote.
Pornhub, one of the world's busiest websites, has stopped operating in several states, including Texas, citing the technical and privacy hurdles in complying with the laws.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, celebrated the ruling. 'Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures,' he said. The decision could pave the way for more states to adopt similar laws as one of several steps to prevent children from being exposed to pornography, the group National Center on Sexual Exploitation said.
While the Free Speech Coalition agreed that children shouldn't be seeing porn, it said the law puts an unfair free-speech burden on adults by requiring them to submit personal information that could be vulnerable to hacking or tracking.
Alison Boden, its executive director, called the ruling disastrous. She said that minors have already found ways to find sexual content online despite the law and its 'massive chilling effect on adults.'
The age verification requirements fall on websites that have a certain amount of sexual material, rather than search engines or social-media sites that can be used to find it.
Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology, said that age verification requirements raise serious privacy and free-expression concerns. The court's decision 'overturns decades of precedent and has the potential to upend access to First Amendment-protected speech on the internet for everyone, children and adults alike.'
In 1996, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a law banning explicit material viewable by kids online. A divided court also ruled against a different federal law aimed at stopping kids from being exposed to porn in 2004 but said less restrictive measures like content filtering are constitutional.
Texas argues that technology has improved significantly in the last 20 years, allowing online platforms to easily check users' ages with a quick picture. Those requirements are more like ID checks at brick-and-mortar adult stores that were upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, the state said.
District courts initially blocked laws in Indiana and Tennessee as well as Texas, but appeals courts reversed the decisions and let the laws take effect.
'There has to be a gatekeeper somewhere when it comes to exposure,' said Rania Mankarious, a mother of three and CEO of Crime Stoppers of Houston. 'While nothing is full proof, we're thankful to see something be done.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
29 minutes ago
- The Mainichi
Trump says he's terminating trade talks with Canada over tax on tech firms
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump said Friday that he's suspending trade talks with Canada over its plans to continue with its tax on technology firms, which he called "a direct and blatant attack on our country." Trump, in a post on his social media network, said Canada had just informed the U.S. that it was sticking to its plan to impose the digital services tax, which applies to Canadian and foreign businesses that engage with online users in Canada. The tax is set to go into effect Monday. "Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period," Trump said in his post. Trump's announcement was the latest swerve in the trade war he's launched since taking office for a second term in January. Progress with Canada has been a roller coaster, starting with the U.S. president poking at the nation's northern neighbor and repeatedly suggesting it would be absorbed as a U.S. state. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Friday that his country would "continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interests of Canadians. It's a negotiation." Trump later said he expects that Canada will remove the tax. "Economically we have such power over Canada. We'd rather not use it," Trump said in the Oval Office. "It's not going to work out well for Canada. They were foolish to do it." When asked if Canada could do anything to restart talks, he suggested Canada could remove the tax, predicted it will but said, "It doesn't matter to me." Carney visited Trump in May at the White House, where he was polite but firm. Trump last week traveled to Canada for the G7 summit in Alberta, where Carney said that Canada and the U.S. had set a 30-day deadline for trade talks. The digital services tax will hit companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb with a 3% levy on revenue from Canadian users. It will apply retroactively, leaving U.S. companies with a $2 billion U.S. bill due at the end of the month. "We appreciate the Administration's decisive response to Canada's discriminatory tax on U.S. digital exports," Matt Schruers, chief executive of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, said in a statement. Canada and the U.S. have been discussing easing a series of steep tariffs Trump imposed on goods from America's neighbor. The Republican president earlier told reporters that the U.S. was soon preparing to send letters to different countries, informing them of the new tariff rate his administration would impose on them. Trump has imposed 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum as well as 25% tariffs on autos. He is also charging a 10% tax on imports from most countries, though he could raise rates on July 9, after the 90-day negotiating period he set would expire. Canada and Mexico face separate tariffs of as much as 25% that Trump put into place under the auspices of stopping fentanyl smuggling, though some products are still protected under the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement signed during Trump's first term. Addressing reporters after a private meeting with Republican senators Friday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declined to comment on news that Trump had ended trade talks with Canada. "I was in the meeting," Bessent said before moving on to the next question. About 60% of U.S. crude oil imports are from Canada, and 85% of U.S. electricity imports as well. Canada is also the largest foreign supplier of steel, aluminum and uranium to the U.S. and has 34 critical minerals and metals that the Pentagon is eager to obtain. About 80% of Canada's exports go to the U.S. Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, said it is a domestic tax issue, but it has been a source of tensions between Canada and the United States for a while because it targets U.S. tech giants. "The Digital Services Tax Act was signed into law a year ago so the advent of this new tax has been known for a long time," Beland said. "Yet, President Trump waited just before its implementation to create drama over it in the context of ongoing and highly uncertain trade negotiations between the two countries."
Yomiuri Shimbun
5 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions, but Fate of Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Unclear
WASHINGTON (AP) — A united conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled Friday that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. The outcome represented a victory for Trump, who has complained about judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions had emerged as an important check on the Republican president's efforts to expand executive power and remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to him and his allies. But the court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote. Even then it's unclear whether the court's decision could produce a confusing patchwork of rules that might differ in the 22 states that sued over the Trump order and the rest of the country. The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Judges have issued more than 40 such orders since Trump took office for a second term in January. The administration has filed emergency appeals with the justices of many of those orders, including the ones on birthright citizenship. The court rarely hears arguments and issues major decisions on its emergency, or shadow, docket, but it did so in this case. Federal courts, Barrett wrote, 'do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' The president, speaking in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was 'amazing' and a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of law. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York wrote on X that the decision is 'an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent for the three liberal justices, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.' This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court. The administration didn't even ask, as it has in other cases, for the lower-court rulings to be blocked completely, Sotomayor wrote. 'To get such relief, the government would have to show that the order is likely constitutional, an impossible task,' she wrote. But the ultimate fate of the changes Trump wants to make were not before the court, Barrett wrote, just the rules that would apply as the court cases continue. Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of 'putative nationwide class.' Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring opinion. States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold. 'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,' said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption. Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration. The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings. The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case. The justices also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.
Yomiuri Shimbun
5 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Hungary's LGBTQ+ Community Defies Government Ban on Pride March
BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Hungary's LGBTQ+ community is preparing for a face-off with the country's autocratic government, and plans to push ahead with a march in the capital on Saturday despite a government ban and threats of legal repercussions. The populist party of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in March fast-tracked a law through parliament that made it an offense to hold or attend events that 'depict or promote' homosexuality to minors aged under 18. Orbán earlier made clear that Budapest Pride — marking its 30th anniversary this year — was the explicit target of the law. But on Friday, Pride organizers along with Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony, European Commissioner Hadja Lahbib and Vice President of the European Parliament Nicolae Stefanuta said the march will take place Saturday despite official threats of heavy fines for participants and even jail time for the liberal mayor. They expect the march to be the largest ever Pride event in Hungary. 'The government is always fighting against an enemy against which they have to protect Hungarian people … This time, it is sexual minorities that are the target,' Karácsony told a news conference. 'We believe there should be no first and second class citizens, so we decided to stand by this event.' A crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights Critics of the Pride ban and other Hungarian legislation targeting LGBTQ+ communities say the policies are reminiscent of similar restrictions against sexual minorities in Russia. Hungary's recent law allows authorities to use facial recognition tools to identify individuals that attend a prohibited event. Being caught could result in fines of up to 200,000 Hungarian forints ($586.) Orbán, seen as Russian President Vladimir Putin's closest ally in the European Union, has in recent years prohibited same-sex adoption and banned any LGBTQ+ content including in television, films, advertisements and literature that is available to minors. His government argues exposure to such content negatively affects children's development. But opponents say the moves are part of a broader effort to scapegoat sexual minorities and consolidate his conservative base. Fines and facial recognition After police rejected several requests by organizers to register the Pride march, citing the recent law, Karácsony joined with organizers and declared it would be held as a separate municipal event — something he said does not require police approval. But Hungary's government has remained firm, insisting that holding the Pride march, even if it is sponsored by the city, would be unlawful. In a video on Facebook this week, Hungary's justice minister, Bence Tuzson, warned Karácsony that organizing Pride or encouraging people to attend is punishable by up to a year in prison. At the news conference Friday, Karácsony sought to dispel fears that police would impose heavy fines on Pride attendees. 'Police have only one task tomorrow: to guarantee the safety and security of those gathered at the event,' he said. Speaking to state radio on Friday, Orbán said that attending Pride 'will have legal consequences, but it can't reach the level of physical abuse.' 'The police could disperse such events, they have the right to do so. But Hungary is a civilized country,' he said. Right-wing counter-demonstrations On Thursday, radical right-wing party Our Homeland Movement announced it had requested police approval to hold assemblies at numerous locations across the city, many of them on the same route as the Pride march. Later, a neo-Nazi group said it too would gather Saturday at Budapest City Hall, from which the Pride march is set to depart. The group declared that only 'white, Christian, heterosexual men and women' were welcome to attend its demonstration. European officials respond Hungary's Pride ban has prompted a backlash from many of the country's partners and allies. Over 30 foreign embassies signed a joint statement this week expressing their commitment to 'every person's rights to equal treatment and nondiscrimination, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen posted on social platform X on Wednesday, calling on Hungarian authorities to allow Pride to proceed 'without fear of any criminal or administrative sanctions against the organizers or participants.' More than 70 members of the European Parliament, as well as other officials from countries around Europe, are expected to participate in Saturday's march. Lahbib, the European Commissioner, said Friday that 'all eyes are on Budapest' as Pride marchers defy the government's ban. 'The EU is not neutral on hate,' she said. 'We cannot stay passive. We cannot tolerate what is intolerable.'
