Latest news with #FirstAmendment-protected
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
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.
Yomiuri Shimbun
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
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.'
The Hill
a day ago
- Business
- The Hill
What to know about online age verification laws
The Supreme Court has upheld a Texas law aimed at blocking children under 18 from seeing online pornography by requiring websites to verify the ages of all visitors. Many states have passed similar age verification laws in an attempt to restrict access to adult material from minors, but digital rights groups have raised questions about such laws' effects on free speech and whether verifying ages by accessing sensitive data could violate people's privacy. The law requires websites hosting pornographic material to verify the ages of users in hopes of stopping those under 18 from visiting. Adults would need to supply websites with a government-issued ID or use third-party age-verification services. The law carries fines of up to $10,000 per violation — fined against the website — that could be raised to up to $250,000 per violation by a minor. Texas has argued 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. However, internet service providers, search engines and news sites are exempt from the law. It's already illegal to show children pornography under federal law, however it's rarely enforced. But various measures already exist to verify a person's age online. Someone could upload a government ID or consent to the use facial recognition software to prove they are the age they say they are. Websites and social media companies such as Instagram parent company Meta have argued that age verification should be done by the companies that run app stores, such as Apple and Google, and not individual apps or websites. Critics, such as Pornhub have argued that age-verification laws can be easily circumvented with well-known tools such as virtual private networks (VPNs) that reroute requests to visit websites across various public networks. Questions have also been raised about enforcement, with Pornhub claiming those efforts would drive traffic to less-known sites that don't comply with the law and have fewer safety protocols. Though heralded by social conservatives, age verification laws have been condemned by adult websites who argue they're part of a larger anti-sex political movement. They've also garnered opposition from groups that advocate for digital privacy and free speech, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The group has argued that it is impossible to ensure websites don't retain user data, regardless of whether age verification laws require they delete it. Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology, said the court's decision on age verification 'does far more than uphold an incidental burden on adults' speech. It 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.' 'Age verification requirements still raise serious privacy and free expression concerns,' Jain added. 'If states are to go forward with these burdensome laws, age verification tools must be accurate and limit collection, sharing, and retention of personal information, particularly sensitive information like birthdate and biometric data.'
The Hill
18-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
X sues New York over social media disclosure law
Elon Musk's X sued the state of New York on Tuesday over a law requiring social media sites to detail how they moderate hate speech, extremism, misinformation and other types of content on their platforms. X argues the law, which is set to go into effect Thursday, violates the First Amendment by compelling companies to disclose 'highly sensitive and controversial speech.' 'The law thus impermissibly interferes with the First Amendment-protected editorial judgments of companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize such speech on their platforms,' the lawsuit reads. The measure, known as the Stop Hiding Hate Act, requires social media platforms to publicly post their terms of service, as well as to submit a report to the New York attorney general about their moderation of hate speech, racism, extremism, radicalization, disinformation, misinformation, harassment and foreign political interference. Companies are subject to fines of up to $15,000 a day for failing to comply with the law. Musk's social media site, which he bought as Twitter in 2022, contends the reporting requirements are a 'carbon copy' of provisions of a California law that were blocked in court last year. California ultimately agreed to drop the provisions as part of a settlement with X. New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D) and assemblymember Grace Lee (D), who sponsored the measure, argued Tuesday that it does not infringe on social media firms' First Amendment rights and instead requires 'narrowly-tailored' disclosures to help consumers decide between platforms. 'We were proud to sponsor the Stop Hiding Hate Act, in partnership with the Anti-Defamation League, because social media companies, including X, are cesspools of hate speech consisting of antisemitism, racism, Islamophobia and anti-LGBTQ bias, yet those platforms have consistently failed to inform the public about their policies regarding hatred and misinformation,' they said in a joint statement. 'We're confident that the court will reject this attempt by X to use the First Amendment as a shield against providing New Yorkers with much needed transparency around their conduct,' the lawmakers added. New York has passed several measures in recent years taking aim at the potential harms associated with social media platforms. Last June, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed into law a bill requiring platforms to restrict addictive feeds for kids. State lawmakers also approved a measure Tuesday requiring warning labels for social media platforms. The bill now heads to Hochul's desk for signing.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Feds refuse judge's order to release activist facing deportation
Supporters of Mahmoud Khalil rally outside the federal courthouse in Newark on March 28, 2025. (Reena Rose Sibayan for New Jersey Monitor) Federal authorities refused a judge's order Friday to release Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil, arguing that the order only barred them from detaining him on the basis of an obscure 1952 law that allows deportations for foreign policy reasons. U.S. District Court Judge Michael Farbiarz had ruled Wednesday that federal authorities lacked grounds to hold Khalil, a permanent resident who's been detained since March for helping to organize pro-Palestinian protests. His detention was likely unconstitutional, the judge decreed, ordering authorities to free him or ask the 3d Circuit Court of Appeals by Friday morning to step in. But in a letter to the court Friday, government attorneys argued they were no longer detaining Khalil based on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and instead held him based on a separate federal statute that allows authorities to keep immigrants in custody during removal proceedings. 'Detaining Khalil based on that other ground of removal is lawful,' the attorneys wrote. 'An alien like Khalil may be detained during the pendency of removal proceedings regardless of the charge of removability.' Secretary of State Marco Rubio in April released a memo justifying Khalil's deportation that argued his support of pro-Palestinian protests would have 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.' Farbiarz on Wednesday had noted the government could argue Khalil, who has no criminal convictions or charges, could be detained because some information on his lawful permanent resident application was allegedly inaccurate. But he'd cautioned that argument would be ineffective here because green card holders are virtually never detained for that reason. 'That strongly suggests that it is the Secretary of State's determination that drives the Petitioner's ongoing detention — not the other charge against him,' the judge wrote Wednesday. Attorney Ian Fernando Hinonangan, who represents Khalil, echoed the judge's own words and said federal authorities' reasoning for his continued detention was part of a campaign of retaliation for Khalil's First Amendment-protected speech. While the judge's order allowed officials to continue efforts to remove Khalil that were not based on Rubio's memo, it did not explicitly permit them to continue detaining him for other reasons, Hinonangan wrote in a Friday declaration. 'The post-hoc charge is an undisputed continuation in the fabric of retaliatory motive and hence 'carries the taint of unconstitutional conduct,'' Hinonangan said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
