Justice Alito had some questions about Pornhub

The Supreme Court spent Wednesday talking dirty—in the least sexy sense possible. The nation’s highest court heard arguments on whether Texas violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by requiring citizens searching for pornography to verify their age with A valid government-issued ID or face scan before they can access adult content. A group called the Free Speech Coalition—which includes free speech organizations like the ACLU and members of the adult content industry—is fighting the law, while the Attorney General Texas Ken Paxton make the case of the state.

The arguments read like a walk down porn’s memory lane as the justices discussed the many forms the content has taken and how legal age requirements should be enforced , from “cable TV scribbles” to magazines that “print obscene” and “feminine” content. . The term “Dial-a-Porn” is even mentioned, reinforcing the statements of our forebears about the now-popular audio porn app forever being consigned to the Library of Congress through court records.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito couldn’t resist bringing up the old “I read it for the article” joke from the bench, while also asking, “What percentage of what’s on there isn’t obscene?” Is it the same as before? dissipated magazine? You have essays there by modern-day equivalents of Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr.?”

Derek Shaffer, on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, which opposes age verification laws, had to admit: “Not in that sense. But in the sense that you have sexual health posts about women recovering from hysterectomies and how they can enjoy sex, that’s there.”

Alito was also curious to know which is the second most popular porn site after Pornhub. Shaffer admitted that he “didn’t have an exact ranking,” then told an incredulous Alito: “We represent this industry.”

The SCOTUS hearing comes after the Republican-majority Texas legislature passed the state’s age verification law, House Bill 1181, in 2023. In March 2024, after the Court 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds law, Pornhub, one of the law- has accessed websites around the world, blocks Texas users from accessing it. Instead, tourists sent a message about the law, is characterized by Pornhub as “ineffective, haphazard and dangerous,” urged them to contact their representatives and speak out against it.

As of January 1 this year, Pornhub has blocked the user in Florida and South Carolina too, adding them to the list along with Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia, all of which have passed similar age verification laws.

“Porn is the canary in the free speech coal mine,” speak Spokesperson for the Free Speech Coalition Mike is stable. “These bills are aimed at eliminating the adult industry.”

However, Texas lawmakers insist that they are protecting minors from sexually explicit content and that checking a box to certify that the user is over 18 is not enough protection to protect them. Children are protected from accessing pornographic content. “unlimited amount of hardcore porn.”

Concerns about the cost of implementing such verification measures, as well as data security concerns that come with collecting and storing users’ personal information, also influence their decisions. Pornhub and other sites in withdrawing from states with bans. Users in the affected states appear to have been more creative with Google Trends data shows a spike in finding VPN services post-ban, especially in Florida.

Shaffer says the law’s purpose is more to undercut the adult content industry than to protect children, as evidenced by the high-touch and high-cost verification measures the law requires. He is described Some age verification techniques are considered “chilling” and argue that more conservative measures, such as per-device filtering, would be a more reasonable standard.

“The tradition on the Internet is to say it will be free and that parents are responsible for screening out content that is inappropriate for their children,” Shaffer said. “Some [this content] is soft core by any account. We would recognize it as people wearing less rather than more clothing, but not anything that anyone would consider obscene for an adult and likely for a 17-year-old . It’s up to parents to decide what’s appropriate for their teens.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, citing the different ways people can access pornography as an argument against device filtering and parental monitoring. “Kids can watch porn online through gaming systems, tablets, phones, computers,” Barrett said. “Let me just say that filtering content for all those different devices, I can say from personal experience, it’s very difficult to keep up.”

Agreeing, Alito also urged free speech advocates to be “honest” about parents’ ability to prevent their children from trying to access websites.​ “Did you know many parents are more tech-savvy than their 15-year-old children?” he asked.

Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern about the precedent that a decision in this case could set for other First Amendment issues.

“It seems to me that there could be spillover risks,” Kagan said. “One is the risk of spillover, you relax strict supervision in one place and suddenly strict supervision is relaxed in other places. The second is the risk of spillover, you see clearly content-based legislation as not requiring close scrutiny and suddenly you start to see more content-based restrictions that don’t need to accommodate scrutiny tight.”

A ruling on the case is expected this summer.