Bill would require adult websites to confirm age of Ohio users
Under House Bill 84, dubbed 'The Innocence Act,' pornography websites and any website that hosts content that is 'obscene or harmful to juveniles' would have to verify its visitors are at least 18 years old. The legislation is sponsored by Reps. Steve Demetriou (R-Bainbridge Twp.) and Josh Williams (R-Sylvania Twp.).
Fight over DEI in schools rages at Ohio Statehouse
'In Ohio, businesses that primarily sell or rent adult content are legally required to verify the age of their customers,' Demetriou said at the bill's first hearing in February. 'The Innocence Act brings this commonsense safeguard into the 21st century.'
Under the bill, Ohio users of adult websites would have to prove their age through a copy of a government-issued photo ID or another personal document, such as proof of a mortgage or employment. Companies would be required to 'immediately' delete such documents after the age verification is complete unless the user has a subscription or account.
The bill would create a first-degree misdemeanor penalty for each day an adult website fails to verify Ohio users' ages. A first-degree misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine per conviction.
The legislation would also establish the right for parents to file a civil lawsuit if a minor is given access to pornographic materials online. In the scenario where a minor in the state falsifies their way past the age verification, the website owner would be protected under the law, as long as they made a genuine attempt to verify the user's age. Children who attempt to access porn would not face penalties under the bill.
If the bill were to pass, adult websites would be responsible for using a system to monitor the location of its visitors to ensure Ohioans' ages are verified.
Whitehall considering laws to protect transgender and immigrant residents
Demetriou cited multiple studies in support of the bill, including a 2010 study in the scientific journal Aggressive Behavior, which found exposure to violent X-rated content led to an increase in self-reported sexually aggressive behavior. He also noted other findings, including studies that linked porn to heightened feelings of social isolation and sexist attitudes toward women.
'As young children gain more and more access to digital content like this, states like Ohio must act to protect them from harmful materials, as we have with physical media,' Williams said. 'By passing HB 84, Ohio would join Texas, Utah, and Kansas in enacting legislation to protect minors from pornographic materials online.'
The bill would additionally increase penalties for revenge porn — or releasing sexual content of someone without their consent — as well as deepfake porn, which uses existing photos of someone to create sexual materials using artificial intelligence.
Under the legislation, creating deepfake porn would be classified as a fourth-degree felony for a first offense. For repeat offenders or offenses involving minors, the charge would be upgraded to a third-degree felony. Revenge porn would be classified as a fifth-degree felony, which would be upgraded to a fourth-degree felony for a repeat or child-oriented offense.
These crimes are currently classified as misdemeanors under the law, which Demetriou said is 'far too lenient given the serious harm they inflict.'
Large Hilliard development closes in on completion
In the previous General Assembly, Demetriou introduced similar legislation under the same name. The bill received support from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, the Women's Liberation Front, Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and Center for Christian Virtue.
The only opponent testimony came from Gary Daniels with the American Civil Liberties Union. Daniels only spoke out against the age-verification portion of the legislation, saying over history such laws have been weaponized against movies, magazines, video games, sex education and more.
'There is something to be said about parental control and not involving government, law enforcement, courts, and incarceration,' Daniels said. 'Software that filters and/or blocks online content is widely available and inexpensive, much of it free. This allows parents to limit or block access for their own children without requiring the same be done for all minors and without burdening adults.'
The previous bill received four hearings but ultimately did not pass by the end of the legislative session.
Currently, 19 states have passed laws requiring age verification to access online pornography, according to The Age Verification Providers Association. Some adult websites have gone dark in these states, including PornHub, which has blocked access to users in regions that require age verification.
HB 84 was assigned to the Technology and Innovation Committee, where its second hearing will occur on Tuesday. The bill has 25 Republican and three Democrat cosponsors.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 hours ago
- The Hill
Why Columbia gave in to Trump's extortion
On July 23, Columbia University entered into a resolution agreement with the federal government to settle claims that it didn't do enough to prevent harassment of Jewish students. Columbia promised to pay $200 million in fines, plus $21 million to settle employment discrimination claims. It also agreed to a raft of policy changes, pledging to further support Jewish students, to comply with laws banning consideration of race in admissions and hiring, to provide the government with admissions data and disciplinary information about international students, to ensure its Middle Eastern Studies programs are 'comprehensive and balanced' and to roll back DEI efforts. In return, the government agreed to close multiple civil rights investigations, release most of the $400 million in previously frozen research funding and consider future grant proposals from Columbia 'without disfavored treatment.' Earlier this month, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle President Trump's claims about prejudicial editing of a CBS News '60 Minutes' interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Though many legal experts considered the suit baseless, Paramount executives feared it might become an obstacle to a multi-billion dollar sale of the company requiring approval by the Federal Trade Commission. That approval finally came, in a two-to-one vote, on July 24. In March, Paul Weiss, one of the country's top law firms, agreed to represent clients without regard to their political affiliation and perform $40 million in pro bono work for causes supported by Trump in return for termination of a manifestly illegal and financially crippling executive order restricting the firm's security clearances and barring its lawyers from federal buildings. The firm's offense? Primarily that it had a former partner who, while serving as a Manhattan prosecutor, had overseen the criminal investigation into Trump and then written a book urging his prosecution. These three cases demonstrate that, even in long-established democracies, a leader willing to ignore legal constraints and social norms ' has the cards,' as Trump would say, to settle personal scores with his long list of enemies, using one pretext or another. Columbia, Paramount and Paul Weiss could have all chosen to fight the Trump administration in court. Confronted with demands restricting its autonomy and authority, Harvard decided to sue. Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Wall Street Journal, seems inclined to fight Trump's lawsuit over his newspaper's reporting on Trump's birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein. Faced with executive orders similar to the one directed at Paul Weiss, four other law firms chose to litigate rather than capitulate. But Columbia lacks Harvard's resources. The Wall Street Journal is not for sale. The law firms that sued did not confront as grave a risk to their billings as Paul Weiss and the eight other firms who struck similar deals. Critics have praised those choosing to fight and pilloried those choosing to settle. It is worth noting, however, that lawsuits can turn into settlements and settlements can collapse into lawsuits. Also, in these three cases, those deciding to fight cannot be made whole. Lawsuits can stop some administration tactics but cannot stop them all. Suing may prompt Trump to double down on penalties, but may also serve as a bargaining chip in settlement talks. And settlements, especially with the Trump administration, can serve as the prelude to more demands. As Claire Shipman, Columbia's interim president, put it, 'The desire for a simple narrative: capitulation versus courage, or talking versus fighting' ignores the reality 'that real-life situations are deeply complex.' No tactic will immunize a university, media corporation or law firm from a government willing to color this far outside the lines. And individual institutions have no pathway to protect the rule of law against a government willing to ignore it. Columbia's settlement does set a dangerous precedent. As Joseph Slaughter, a Columbia faculty member, stated, the agreement normalizes 'political interference in teaching, research and the pursuit of truth.' The administration is already using the settlement as a template for negotiations with other universities, including Harvard, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Brown. In our view, Columbia — which cannot survive as a research university without substantial funding from the federal government — had little choice but to cut a deal. Harvard may yet come to the same conclusion. It has won some short-term victories and will likely win more. But even if the university wins every case it brings, it cannot compel the government to award it future grants, issue visas to foreign nationals seeking to study or work at Harvard or block every perversely creative form of intimidation the administration dreams up. So even when it loses in court, the Trump administration still wins. Its goal is not just to intimidate its direct targets, but the sectors the targets represent: higher education, the media and law firms. These are the mainstays of the civil society of any democracy. Not coincidentally, they also house many of the president's most visible critics. Colleges and universities that care about their research funding, or fear the burdens of trumped-up civil rights investigations, must think twice about pursuing any action likely to incur the administration's ire. For this reason, many of them are already engaging in ' anticipatory obedience ' — terminating DEI programs, mandating tougher punishments for campus protesters and shying away from public statements on sensitive issues. As U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote when striking down Trump's executive order against the law firm WilmerHale, 'the order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!' Law firms are listening, and even though those that sue are winning, a growing number are declining to take cases likely to upset the Justice Department, which is on the verge of becoming on a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization. And as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has observed, Paramount's settlement in the '60 Minutes' case sends a 'chilling message to journalists everywhere.' Authoritarian governments routinely seek to undermine civil society, but strong popular opposition can force a change in behavior. Most Americans disapprove of Trump's assault on higher education and the legal system, but they can do more to make their voices heard — in the organizations they support, with their elected representatives and, of course, at the ballot box.
Axios
20 hours ago
- Axios
What to do when you're a Trump target, corporate edition
In an instant, a company can get caught in the crosshairs of a Truth Social post from President Trump, and suddenly that business is on the hook for changing its flagship product, brand name, supply chain — or else. Why it matters: These posts can throw businesses off course by threatening their revenue streams and confusing their employees and customers. The big picture: Business leaders have developed coping strategies in response. Here's what works (and what doesn't): Don't lash out. Companies are a lot more careful about being publicly critical of this administration. Do meet privately. The savviest CEOs "don't humiliate Trump, they talk with him privately," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management. Also helpful: Saying nice things about the president publicly. Do something that looks like appeasement. Get out in front of the White House by taking steps to please Trump — ditching DEI, announcing new factories or making approving statements. "Giving the White House a win on something has forever been a good strategy," says Michael Robinson, CEO of the Montgomery Strategies Group, a strategic communications and public affairs firm. And it is particularly true in this administration. "Let them take the victory lap," he says. Where it stands: Trump has made a habit of front-running corporate announcements or forcing the hand of some of America's largest companies, whether on social media or through sweeping proclamations and executive orders. He's declared the arrival of cane-sugar Coca-Cola, demanded the Washington Commanders change their name and taken credit for Apple's re-shoring announcement. "Every company is just one Truth Social post away from being thrown into the political crosshairs," Robinson tells Axios. "I've known three generations of CEOs. This is the toughest administration to work with," Sonnenfeld says. Between the lines: There's been building frustration and resentment among businesses, particularly over how erratically tariff policy has unfolded, according to a senior consultant who asked to be anonymous because the consultant represents multiple companies at the White House. There's a growing belief that negotiations with the administration don't hinge on business imperatives, but are instead "all about quid pro quo." "There's very little policy or substantive discussions happening, two issues that matter most for many businesses." Friction point: The transactional, deal-making nature of this administration is chipping away at corporate reputation and trust. For example, CBS says the decision to end " The Colbert Show" can be attributed to financials. Others say it's actually a way to appease the administration — and regulators — ahead of its parent company's merger with Skydance Media. Reality check: This isn't a new strategy — companies have long tried to please the White House. Administrations have picked winners and losers before — the Biden administration favored labor unions, for example, and put roadblocks up in front of the crypto industry. The other side: The only factor guiding the President is what's in the best interest of Americans, says Kush Desai, a White House spokesman. "The Administration is working hand in glove with the private sector to deliver for the American people. American companies voluntarily dropping artificial ingredients, ending racist DEI policies, and investing in American manufacturing is reflective of how this close cooperation is delivering mutually beneficial wins." Zoom out: It's one thing for a president to make asks of companies, but this has been going further — with a White House delving into minutiae and issuing explicit threats. That's particularly challenging for small companies, says Peter Cohan, a management professor at Babson College who has been interviewing executives on how they're dealing with tariffs. "Most businesses can't get to the White House."
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Incoming CBS owner promises Trump's FCC it will review ‘complaints of bias' at news network and eliminate DEI policies
Skydance Media, the production company that will soon take over Paramount, told the Trump administration this week that it would eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies and hire an ombudsman to review 'complaints of bias' at CBS News once its $8.4 billion merger is complete. In a pair of letters to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr this week, Skydance's general counsel Kyoko McKinnon noted that while Skydance 'does not have DEI programs in place today,' the company confirmed that the New Paramount would not establish any similar practices in the future. Following President Donald Trump's executive orders earlier this year calling for the eradication of diversity and equity policies, Carr launched investigations into media conglomerates Disney – which owns ABC News – and Comcast, the parent company of NBC News, over their DEI hiring and editorial initiatives. Trump's hand-picked FCC chief, meanwhile, has also said that his agency would block any media mergers and acquisitions if the companies involved had diversity policies in place. 'Any businesses that are looking for FCC approval, I would encourage them to get busy ending any sort of their invidious forms of DEI discrimination,' he told Bloomberg in March. 'If there's businesses out there that are still promoting invidious forms of DEI discrimination, I really don't see a path forward where the FCC could reach the conclusion that approving the transaction is going to be in the public interest.' McKinnon additionally told Carr that Skydance would hire an ombudsman for at least two years, noting that the person would report directly to the president of the New Paramount and 'receive and evaluate any complaints of bias or other concerns involving CBS.' The letter added that the company's executive leadership would 'carefully consider any such complaints in overseeing CBS's news programming.' This pledge comes weeks after Paramount settled a lawsuit brought by Trump alleging 'election interference' due to the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Even though the network denied the president's claims of 'deceptive' editing and called the lawsuit 'meritless,' Paramount paid Trump $16 million amid the pending merger, sparking accusations of bribery from Democratic lawmakers, free press organizations and CBS employees. 'New Paramount's new management will ensure that the company's array of news and entertainment programming embodies a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum,' McKinnon also noted, echoing similar promises Skydance CEO David Ellison made to Carr in a meeting this month. Ellison, the son of billionaire and Trump ally Larry Ellison, urged Carr to approve the merger and 'promptly grant' Paramount's request to transfer control of its broadcast licenses to Skydance. He further vowed that CBS would be 'unbiased' under the new corporate leadership. 'Relatedly, we discussed Skydance's commitment to unbiased journalism and its embrace of diverse viewpoints, principles that will ensure CBS's editorial decision-making reflects the varied ideological perspectives of American viewers,' Ellison's lawyer wrote in a regulatory filing. The meeting between Ellison and Carr took place days before Paramount and CBS announced that they had canceled outspoken Trump critic Stephen Colbert's late-night show, leading to further speculation that the demise of The Late Show was not a 'purely financial decision' and may have been politically motivated. Paramount has insisted that the cancellation was due solely to the dwindling ad revenues for late-night television and the high production costs of Colbert's show, though many CBS staffers feel it is actually 'part and parcel of the Trump shakedown settlement.' Regardless of whether Colbert's cancellation was a move to appease Trump or not, both the president and Carr have gloated over the decision. 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,' Trump declared on Friday. 'His talent was even less than his ratings.' Carr, meanwhile, tweeted on Tuesday that the 'partisan left's ritualist wailing and gnashing of teeth over Colbert is quite revealing,' adding that 'they're acting like they're losing a loyal DNC spokesperson.' Later on in the day, the president repeated his claim that he had struck a secret side deal with Skydance to give him up to $20 million more in pro-Trump advertising and PSAs as part of the 60 Minutes settlement. A group of liberal senators is investigating whether Ellison made any such promises to Trump. Paramount has denied knowledge of that backdoor arrangement, asserting that its payoff to Trump "does not include PSAs or anything related to PSAs.' Solve the daily Crossword
