Pornhub, XNXX in panic? US Supreme Court ruling lets states crack down on online adult content access
The US Supreme Court has upheld a Texas law mandating age verification for pornography websites, a decision that has stirred concerns within the adult entertainment industry. This 6-3 ruling supports Texas House Bill 1181, which requires users to provide age proof before accessing such sites, potentially impacting access and raising First Amendment and privacy concerns.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Supreme Court Backs Texas Porn Law, Shaking Up the Adult Industry
A Major Shift in First Amendment Interpretation
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Justice Clarence Thomas: Smartphones Changed Everything
Free Speech Advocates Say Adults Pay the Price
Justice Elena Kagan Warns of Privacy Risks in Dissent
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
FAQs
The US Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law that requires users to prove their age before viewing pornography sites, as per a report. The ruling has set off alarm bells across the adult entertainment industry , where sites like Pornhub and XNXX now face an uncertain future in states enforcing similar laws, according to a HuffPost report.The 6–3 ruling supports Texas House Bill 1181 , a 2023 law that mandates online pornography platforms verify users' ages by giving age proof, as per the report. Any site that fails to comply faces steep fines: $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 if minors gain access, as per the HuffPost report.According to the report, now eighteen states, including Texas, have laws in effect that require age verification for pornography sites, while six other states have enacted such laws that are not yet in effect.ALSO READ: Supreme court limits nationwide injunctions: Implications for Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order The decision marks a shift from previous First Amendment rulings. In the 1990s, the Supreme Court struck down two federal laws that attempted to regulate online pornography, the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act, ruling they were unconstitutionally restricting free speech, according to HuffPost report.Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, and pointed out that technology has advanced since the court's rulings on those laws enacted in the 1990s, as he said, 'With the rise of the smartphone and instant streaming, many adolescents can now access vast libraries of video content—both benign and obscene—at almost any time and place, with an ease that would have been unimaginable at the time' which the court last ruled on online pornography, quoted HuffPost.Thomas wrote that, 'The statute advances the State's important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content,' adding, '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," as quoted in the report.ALSO READ: Congress cut off? White House limits intel sharing after Iran strikes report leak But lawyers for the Free Speech Coalition, which is a consortium of porn sites, argued that the law placed an undue burden on the speech of adults by requiring them to undergo age verification, while acknowledging that states may restrict access to pornography for minors, as reported by HuffPost.However, Thomas rejected their argument by pointing out that the First Amendment does not protect against age verification. He argued that, '[A]dults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification, and the statute can readily be understood as an effort to restrict minors' access,' adding, 'Any burden experienced by adults is therefore only incidental to the statute's regulation of activity that is not protected by the First Amendment,' as quoted in the HuffPost report.Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, saying, 'Under ordinary First Amendment doctrine, this Court should subject H. B. 1181 to strict scrutiny,' adding, 'That is because H. B. 1181 covers speech constitutionally protected for adults; impedes adults' ability to view that speech; and imposes that burden based on the speech's content. Case closed,' as quoted in the report.Kagan pointed out that because the Texas law requires adults to verify their age by providing a driver's license or data 'associated with things like a job or mortgage,' it acts as 'a deterrent' for adults looking to access pornography, according to the HuffPost report.She also said that, 'It is not, contra the majority, like having to flash ID to enter a club,' adding, 'It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habits—respecting speech many find repulsive—to a website operator, and then to ... who knows? The operator might sell the information; the operator might be hacked or subpoenaed,' as quoted in the report.Yes, if you're in a state with one of these laws. Sites will likely require age proof through ID or other data.You may be blocked from accessing the site in states enforcing these laws.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
US Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills The US Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas' law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users' ages - for example by making users scan and upload their driver's license - before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not majority on the court rejected both the porn industry's argument for strict scrutiny - the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary - and Texas' argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law's legitimate aims and its Justice Clarence Thomas ' opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate court's reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only "incidentally" burdening adults' First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop 95 per cent of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions "could not have conceived of these developments," making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an "ordinary and appropriate means" doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver's licenses and voting, the court held that it's similarly appropriate for regulating minors' access to sexual key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users' ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there's no actual knowledge and thus no privacy Supreme Court 's reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California's Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids Supreme Court's reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can't enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on "loot boxes" - digital gambling-like features - and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court's this decision doesn't give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court's reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny's standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not advocates worry that while the "obscene for minors" standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled court's decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully parents worried about their kids' online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
After decades in the US, Iranians arrested in Trump's deportation drive
The department "has been full throttle on identifying and arresting known or suspected terrorists and violent extremists that illegally entered this country, came in through Biden's fraudulent parole programs or otherwise,' spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said of the 11 arrests. She didn't offer any evidence of terrorist or extremist ties. Her comment on parole programs referred to President Joe Biden's expanded legal pathways to entry, which his successor, Donald Trump, shut down. Russell Milne, Kashanian's husband, said his wife is not a threat. Her appeal for asylum was complicated because of 'events in her early life," he explained. A court found an earlier marriage of hers to be fraudulent. But over four decades, Kashanian, 64, built a life in Louisiana. The couple met when she was bartending as a student in the late 1980s. They married and had a daughter. She volunteered with Habitat for Humanity, filmed Persian cooking tutorials on YouTube and was a grandmother figure to the children next door. The fear of deportation always hung over the family, Milne said, but he said his wife did everything that was being asked of her. 'She's meeting her obligations," Milne said. "She's retirement age. She's not a threat. Who picks up a grandmother?' While Iranians have been crossing the border illegally for years, especially since 2021, they have faced little risk of being deported to their home countries due to severed diplomatic relations with the US. That seems to no longer be the case. The Trump administration has deported hundreds of people, including Iranians, to countries other than their own in an attempt to circumvent diplomatic hurdles with governments that won't take their people back. During Trump's second term, countries including El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama have taken back noncitizens from the US. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for several deportations to South Sudan, a war-ravaged country with which it has no ties, after the justices allowed deportations to countries other than those noncitizens came from. The US Border Patrol arrested Iranians 1,700 times at the Mexican border from October 2021 through November 2024, according to the most recent public data available. The Homeland Security Department reported that about 600 Iranians overstayed visas as business or exchange visitors, tourists and students in the 12-month period through September 2023, the most recent data reports. Iran was one of 12 countries subject to a US travel ban that took effect this month. Some fear ICE's growing deportation arrests will be another blow. In Oregon, an Iranian man was detained by immigration agents this past week while driving to the gym. He was picked up roughly two weeks before he was scheduled for a check-in at ICE offices in Portland, according to court documents filed by his attorney, Michael Purcell. The man, identified in court filings as 'SF', has lived in the US for over 20 years, and his wife and two children are US citizens. SF applied for asylum in the US in the early 2000s, but his application was denied in 2002. His appeal failed but the government did not deport him and he continued to live in the country for decades, according to court documents. Due to 'changed conditions' in Iran, SF would face 'a vastly increased danger of persecution' if he were to be deported, Purcell wrote in his petition. 'These circumstances relate to the recent bombing by the United States of Iranian nuclear facilities, thus creating a de facto state of war between the United States and Iran.' SF's long residency in the US, his conversion to Christianity and the fact that his wife and children are US citizens 'sharply increase the possibility of his imprisonment in Iran, or torture or execution,' he said. Similarly, Kashanian's daughter said she is worried what will happen to her mother. 'She tried to do everything right,' Kaitlynn Milne said.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
What's Next For Birthright Citizenship After US Supreme Court Ruling
The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. What does birthright citizenship mean? Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a "magnet for illegal immigration." Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. "I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that "the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed" Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. "The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is "very confident" that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. "It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief," said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to "act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases "challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order." Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. "Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. "By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear."
