Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton: Porn Doesn’t Have to Be ‘Inevitable’

On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton — a suit brought against the Texas law mandating that pornography websites require age verification to prevent minors from accessing sexual content online. 

Supreme Court Justices Seem Friendly to Age Verification

Texas is one of 19 states that require age verification as lawmakers and parents across the nation seek to protect children from online pornography. The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) — a trade organization for the “adult entertainment industry” — challenged the Texas law, arguing that the age verification requirement is not the “least restrictive means” by which to address the problem of juvenile access. 

The case made its way to the Supreme Court where, if oral argument is any indicator, the Justices seem likely to “land somewhere in between the two” sides. 

Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) scholar Brad Littlejohn wrote on X/Twitter that “not a single justice questions that youth porn exposure is a public health crisis requiring urgent gov[ernmen]t action.” Moreover, he wrote, “not a single justice seems interested in the porn lobby’s argument that ‘content filtering’/parental controls can get the job done just fine.” 

“The court is grappling with how to allow states to protect children from obscenity online … while also protecting adults’ access to protected speech,” Clare Morell, also an EPPC scholar, wrote in WORLD.

Regardless of the eventual contours of the Court’s ruling, the oral argument signified the rapid progress of the anti-pornography, pro-child movement. Louisiana became the first state to require age verification in 2022. And, as subsequent states have adopted similar laws, Pornhub has refused to provide access to citizens in those states rather than comply with age verification. It’s not a perfect solution — virtual private networks (VPNs) can circumvent age verification — but it’s an important step in the right direction. 

Why Bother? 

For some critics, however, the age verification laws are an exercise in futility. Ahead of oral argument, the Free Press published an article by reporter River Page titled “Porn Is Inevitable.” While acknowledging that “the rationale behind the laws is understandable,” Page deems them “fundamentally pointless.” 

“First etched into mammoth tusks 40,000 years ago, porn predates the written word,” he writes. “It is inevitable — and in the internet age, infinitely accessible — even in places where so-called ‘porn bans’ have been enacted.”

Citing the surge in VPN downloads in Florida after the state’s age verification law went into effect, Page argues that the digital age offers plenty of workarounds. Social media sites, for example, contain an abundance of explicit content that minors can encounter even without directly searching for it. 

At first, it seems as though Page believes that pornography is too insurmountable to be controlled. But, as the article continues, it becomes clear that freedom is the real sticking point. He writes: 

The day an American teenager with a normal IQ can’t access porn on an unfiltered internet connection is the day freedom no longer exists in the United States. If you want an open internet where even a nominal amount of privacy is possible, that is the cost.

It’s hardly a logical conclusion. Internet privacy is already an antiquated illusion; data is collected, bought, and sold by private companies and the government alike for marketing or surveillance purposes. And the false binary of “freedom” and porn for kids or CCP-style oversight overlooks the more important question at stake. 

Appealing to freedom with respect to addictive substances often allows the freedom to start engaging in a behavior to overshadow the freedom to stop engaging in that behavior. With the average age of pornography exposure hovering around 12 years of age, kids are not equipped to fight the “digital fentanyl” of online porn. And they certainly aren’t “more free” for their ability to stumble across explicit sexual content, either by accident or by choice. 

Parents vs. Pornography

Rather than turn to the government, Page suggests, conservatives should look closer to home: “The institution most capable of stopping children from viewing pornography is the family: If you don’t want your kid watching porn, don’t give them unlimited access to the internet.” 

But, as Morell and Littlejohn argue in the February issue of First Things, parents cannot reckon with the leviathan of the digital age alone. “Parents were assured that ‘parental controls’ left them in control, but even the most dedicated parents found the technological ground shifting beneath their feet,” they write. “The digital ecosystem poses an urgent collective action problem, and we cannot ask parents to shoulder the full burden of bringing children safely to adulthood.”

In the brave new digital world, age verification laws may be only a partial step towards protecting children from the scourge of pornography, but they are undoubtedly a step in the right direction. Pornography might abound online, and, like most human vices, it will never fully disappear. But inaction in the face of the crisis of childhood porn exposure and access isn’t inevitable — it’s a deliberate choice. 

READ MORE by Mary Frances Devlin: 

Pope Francis Gets His Man in Washington 

‘Shield Laws’ Protect Abortionists Who Send Chemical Abortion Pills Across State Lines

Kevin Roberts’s Fiery New Fusionism

Mary Frances (Myler) Devlin is a contributing editor at The American Spectator. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022. Follow her on X/Twitter @maryfrandevlin. 

The post <i>Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton</i>: Porn Doesn’t Have to Be ‘Inevitable’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.