logo
US Supreme Court upholds Texas law to shield kids from online pornography

US Supreme Court upholds Texas law to shield kids from online pornography

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 websites users verify users' 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.
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, 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.
The age verification requirements fall on websites that have a certain amount of sexual material, not 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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US Senate rejects bid to curb Trump's Iran war powers
US Senate rejects bid to curb Trump's Iran war powers

Indian Express

time27 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

US Senate rejects bid to curb Trump's Iran war powers

The Republican-led US Senate rejected a Democratic-led bid on Friday to block President Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran, hours after the president said he would consider more bombing. The Senate vote was 53 to 47 against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran. The vote was along party lines, except Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted no, with Republicans, and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul voted yes, with Democrats. Senator Tim Kaine, chief sponsor of the resolution, has tried for years to wrest back Congress' authority to declare war from both Republican and Democratic presidents. Kaine said his latest effort underscored that the US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the sole power to declare war and requires that any hostility with Iran be explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force. 'If you think the president should have to come to Congress, whether you are for or against a war in Iran, you'll support Senate Joint Resolution 59, you'll support the Constitution that has stood the test of time,' Kaine said in a speech before the vote. Lawmakers have been pushing for more information about weekend U.S. strikes on Iran, and the fate of Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Earlier on Friday, Trump sharply criticized Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels. He was reacting to Khamenei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids against Iranian nuclear sites. Members of Trump's national security team held classified briefings on the strikes for the Senate and House of Representatives on Thursday and Friday. Many Democratic lawmakers left the briefings saying they had not been convinced that Iran's nuclear facilities had been 'obliterated,' as Trump announced shortly after the raid. Opponents of the resolution said the strike on Iran was a single, limited operation within Trump's rights as commander-in-chief, not the start of sustained hostilities. Senator Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican who served as ambassador to Japan during Trump's first term, said the measure could prevent any president from acting quickly against a country that has been a long-term adversary. 'We must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line,' Hagerty said before the vote. Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to Iran's nuclear program was not as profound as he has said. Iran says its nuclear research is for civilian energy production. Under US law, Senate war powers resolutions are privileged, meaning that the chamber had to promptly consider and vote on the measure, which Kaine introduced this month. But to be enacted, the resolution would have had to pass the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson, a close Trump ally, said this week he did not think it was the right time for such an effort. During Trump's first term, in 2020, Kaine introduced a similar resolution to rein in the Republican president's ability to wage war against Iran. That measure passed both the Senate and House of Representatives, with some Republican support, but did not garner enough votes to survive the president's veto.

Imran Khan's party terms Pakistan SC's decision on reserved seats "unjust, misinterpretation of Constitution"
Imran Khan's party terms Pakistan SC's decision on reserved seats "unjust, misinterpretation of Constitution"

Time of India

time38 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Imran Khan's party terms Pakistan SC's decision on reserved seats "unjust, misinterpretation of Constitution"

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Friday expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court's decision on reserved seats , terming the verdict "unjust and a misinterpretation of the Constitution," Geo News reported. PTI's statement follows the Constitutional Bench of the top court's acceptance of review petitions and its decision that the Imran Khan-founded party is not eligible for seats reserved for women and minorities in the national and provincial assemblies. The 10-member bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan announced the verdict. Speaking to Geo News after the court's verdict, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan expressed dismay over the decision, saying, "We are deeply disappointed... the decision is unfair to PTI, and the Constitution has been wrongly interpreted." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo He said, "The reserved seats rightfully belonged to PTI." Khan stated that PTI has no further legal recourse after the Supreme Court's review decision on reserved seats. He further added, "We cannot take this matter to any other court after this review judgment." Gohar Ali Khan announced that PTI will raise the issue inside and outside the parliament. In an official statement issued after the court's ruling, Imran Khan-founded party called the verdict the "darkest day in the country's constitutional history." Live Events Imran Khan-founded party recalled that the Supreme Court had previously recognised PTI's constitutional right to the reserved seats for women and minorities. Gohar Ali Khan further stated, "That was a time when the court announced a decision by the Constitution." PTI stated that the case was under judicial consideration for several months, Geo News reported. The statement reads, "PTI knocked on every legal door, presented every argument, and raised every constitutional point." PTI senator Hamid Khan said the verdict was "not based on justice" and claimed that the bench did not have the authority to decide the matter.

New home construction crisis in Karnataka
New home construction crisis in Karnataka

Hans India

timean hour ago

  • Hans India

New home construction crisis in Karnataka

Bengaluru: A recent Supreme Court ruling prohibiting the provision of electricity, water, and sewerage connections to buildings lacking Completion and Occupancy Certificates (CC & OC) has created a major crisis for new home construction across Karnataka, particularly in urban areas like Bengaluru. The decision has left over 3 lakh building owners in limbo, many of whom are either halfway through construction or preparing to begin. The ruling applies to all new buildings and halts utility services unless both certificates are secured — a situation that has now put government departments under pressure to respond quickly. While existing local municipal laws require CC and OC for final approval, the Electricity Act of 2003 does not mandate these certificates as prerequisites for connection. This legal contradiction has prompted concerns that even sheds, small homes, and village structures might be denied essential services due to technicalities. High Court advocate Sridhar Prabhu, who has closely studied the issue, has written to the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, and Law Minister, suggesting that the government issue a revised clarification — allowing utility connections first, with CC/OC to follow. He noted that the Supreme Court's directive, issued on December 12, 2024, has been in effect for over six months, but the state has failed to respond with actionable solutions. He warns that failure to amend state and municipal laws (BBMP, KMC, BESCOM) could deprive thousands of citizens of basic amenities, despite investing heavily in legal construction. Prabhu recommends that the government urgently clarify via a simplified order that utility services can be granted prior to the issuance of CC/OC — and that local bodies can take action later if these certificates are not secured. 'How can a structure without electricity, water, or sanitation be certified as livable?' he questioned, urging the state to draft legislative amendments to protect the rights of genuine homeowners while remaining within the framework of the Supreme Court's ruling. If not resolved immediately, this legal contradiction could halt real estate and housing development across the state — with no clear workaround in sight.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store