The Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act went into effect on September 1, 2024 in Texas. Its sole purpose: to better protect children from online dangers. The SCOPE Act does this by establishing age verification measures, protecting data privacy, adding parental tools, and blocking harmful content. However, in response to a group of students (ranging in age from middle school minors to college age) who challenged the law, a federal judge officially ruled on Friday to block “parts of Texas’ social media law.”

Judge Robert L. Pitman believes there are certain aspects of the SCOPE Act that “likely run afoul of the Constitution.” Concerning this case, Students Engaged in Advancing Texas v. Paxton, Pitman wrote, “Plaintiffs are users of the Internet — minors and those that engage with them — with specific, demonstrated interests in sharing and engaging with the types of content that [the law] prohibits. This demonstrates an injury-in-fact.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) represented the students, and FIRE chief council Bob Corn-Revere claimed the Texas law posed a threat to free speech. “The court determined that Texas’ law was likely unconstitutional because its provisions restricted protected speech and were so vague that it made it hard to know what was prohibited,” he said. “States can’t block adults from engaging with legal speech in the name of protecting children, nor can they keep minors from ideas that the government deems unsuitable.”

But it’s not just FIRE and the group of minors they’re representing that have taken issue with the SCOPE Act. Some other notable objectors to the law meant to protect children are pornography companies that have also claimed the SCOPE Act threatens the First Amendment. Their challenge has resulted in the case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.

Notably, the news comes as controversy broke out on X after the rapper Kanye West posted explicit content on his account — which he has since deleted. In response to West, a sea of users has called on X CEO Elon Musk to ban porn from the platform. Live Action’s Lila Rose, Students for Life of America’s Kristan Hawkins, conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey, actor Kevin Sorbo, and many others have joined the movement. This, similar to the case in Texas, has apparently sparked a conversation concerning free speech. But as pro-life advocate Abby Johnson put it, “The idea that pornography is a part of ‘free speech’ is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. You don’t have a right to stick degenerate, nasty, and wicked acts in our face and then cover it as speech.”

Back in Texas, FIRE is celebrating the judge’s decision to stop the Texas law from being enforced. In the opinion of lead plaintiff Cameron Samuels, executive director of Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, “Young people have free speech rights, too. … They’re also the future voters and leaders of Texas and America. The SCOPE Act would make youth less informed, less active, and less engaged on some of the most important issues facing the nation.”

On the other hand, the Texas Tribune pointed out that “the injunction comes as parents are becoming increasingly concerned about social media’s effects on children’s mental health, and as legislators are weighing further restrictions on the platforms.”

In a comment to The Washington Stand, Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon stated, “Am I to believe that porn companies are protecting children from exploitation? That’s absurd on its face.” As she went on to explain, “This logic only holds if you think pornography is a form of speech. We know it is not speech. Pornography is exploitation and everyone needs protection from it, not protection for it.”

This marks the second time the law has been temporarily blocked, but a Houston-based outlet reported that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has already appealed Judge Pitman’s decision. “For those who insist that companies are going to be harmed if limitations are enforced that protect children, I prefer to be on the side of child protection,” Kilgannon concluded.