US Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites

Time of India

a day ago

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 internet.In 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 adults.The 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 actions.Instead, 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 standard.The 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 regulation.The 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 computers.Today, 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 ago.More 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 content.The 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 boundary.This 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 protections.The 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 framework.Meanwhile, 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 hooked.The 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 everyone.The 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 online.Proposed 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 parents.Since 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 logic.But 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 access.Laws 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 settled.Many 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 minors.The 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 unconstitutional.The 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 written.For 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.