". . . and having done all . . . stand firm." Eph. 6:13

Newsletter

The News You Need

Subscribe to The Washington Stand

X
News

‘Filtering Doesn’t Work’: SCOTUS Poised to Approve Age Verification Laws for Porn Sites

January 16, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether or not states can enact age verification laws to protect children from online pornography. The court heard oral arguments Wednesday regarding a case challenging age verification laws put in place by Texas. Since similar laws have been enacted by 16 other states, the justices’ eventual decision will have nationwide implications. After two hours of oral arguments and questions, the court’s more conservative majority signaled likely support for Texas’s age verification law.

In his arguments, Derek Shaffer, an attorney representing the pornography industry’s trade association, Free Speech Coalition, suggested that the Texas law imposed unnecessary and unconstitutional burdens on Texans, particularly highlighting privacy concerns. When asked by Justice Clarence Thomas what other option he sees to protect children from online pornography, Shaffer recommended content filtering software. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic mother of seven, was the first to reply.

“Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones, computers. Let me just say that content filtering for all those different devices, I can say from personal experience, is difficult to keep up with,” Barrett related. She continued, “I think that the explosion of addiction to online porn has shown that content filtering isn’t working.” When Shaffer pointed out that most workplaces and government institutions, including the Supreme Court, use content filtering software, Barrett fired back, “This court has an IT department, and so do workplaces.”

Justice Samuel Alito observed that content filtering software is only effective if parents know how to use to protect their children. “Mr. Shaffer, do you know a lot of parents who are more tech-savvy than their 15-year-old children?” he asked, drawing laughter from the other justices. Alito continued, “Come on, be real. There’s a huge volume of evidence that filtering doesn’t work. We’ve had many years of experience with it. We now have many, many states who have adopted age verification requirements. … Why are they doing that if the filtering is so good?”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh added, “The point is that content filtering may work to some extent, but it doesn’t work to the same extent in achieving the government’s interest.” He continued, “The relevant inquiry is not ‘Does content filtering work?’ It’s ‘Does it achieve the interest to the same degree?’” When Shaffer suggested that minors in Texas might circumvent the age verification law by using virtual private networks (VPNs) or search engines, Kavanaugh pointed out that the argument actually hurts the Free Speech Coalition’s argument. He explained, “That’s an under-inclusiveness argument, and I don’t think we’ve said that a state has to tackle every aspect of the problem or else it can’t do anything.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito also zeroed in on differences between internet pornography and pornography in magazines in the 1960s, which sparked legal questions at the time over First Amendment rights. Roberts noted that since “that period, the technological access to pornography, obviously, has exploded, right? I mean, it was very difficult for 15-year-olds, whatever, to get access to the type of things that [are] available with a push of a button today. And the nature of the pornography, I think, has also changed…”

Alito, meanwhile, referred to the fact that the notorious Playboy magazine had articles, which resulted in an old joke that men would explain that they only read Playboy for the articles. “Why don’t you talk about the most popular porn sites, which I gather you’re representing. So one of the parties here is the owner of Pornhub, right? And what percentage of the material on that is not obscene as to children?” Alito asked. He continued, “Is it like the old Playboy magazine? You have essays there by the modern-day equivalent of Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley, Jr.?”

Justice Neil Gorsuch also addressed the fact that nearly all content on pornographic websites is, simply, pornographic. “What percentage of your clients’ materials would be considered obscene for minors?” He asked. “More than 50%? … More than 70%? … More than that? More than 90%?” When Shaffer objected, Gorsuch said, “We got 70%, though. And then do you agree that there is a compelling government interest in keeping obscene materials from minors?”

Appearing on “Washington Watch” Wednesday night, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said that the Free Speech Coalition “acknowledged in their arguments that the state has a compelling interest to protect kids and that they should protect kids from pornography. However, they argue out of the other side of their mouth, ‘Well, this isn’t a good way to do it.’” He added, “The reason it’s not a good way to do it [for the pornography industry] is because it’s effective. It’s effective, it works.” Paxton stated that the Free Speech Coalition and its clients were clearly “motivated by profit.” He continued, “Look, I’m free market. I’m good with profit, but not at the expense of children and the consequences that you’re talking about for the rest of their lives.”

“Getting into the legal details of whether we apply strict scrutiny or rational basis — no one really cares, I don’t even care. I just care that they find a way to allow us to enforce our law,” Paxton continued. He further anticipated that the court would render a ruling in the case “sooner rather than later.” He said, “It … seemed like they were all pretty close. Even some of the more liberal justices accepted that something should be allowed by the state. So it’s just going to be a matter of these little legal nuances and how they think that affects future cases.”

Prior to oral arguments, the American Principles Project hosted a rally outside the Supreme Court, with a number of speakers urging the justices to protect children and allow Texas’s law to go into effect. One of the speakers, Family Research Council Senior Fellow Meg Kilgannon, declared that “pornography is a violation of human dignity that perverts the beauty of human sexuality and exploits human beings as commodities. Pornography inflicts its poison on marriages, families, and communities.” She continued, “Worst of all, it has stolen a time of innocence from our children. The internet has become the largest platform to promulgate explicit sexual material to minors and facilitate human trafficking and prostitution.”

Kilgannon added, “The protection of children is a value shared by all civilized people. America needs to stop worrying about the ‘market access’ of corporations who want to profit off the exploitation of women and children. Americans need to stop listening to people who think that monetizing vice is a noble constitutional cause.” She concluded, “Our children will never be safe if they grow up in a world that tolerates the sexual exploitation of anyone, anywhere, at any age.”

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.



Amplify Our Voice for Truth