Reply With Quote
Relationships without boundaries or limitations Authentic Damsels
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-judges-rule/
Texas can require age-verification on porn sites, 5th Circuit judges rule
One judge dissents, saying Texas law "limits adults' access to protected speech."
JON BRODKIN - 3/11/2024, 12:56 PM
Texas can enforce a law requiring age-verification systems on porn websites, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled Thursday. The appeals court vacated an injunction against the law's age-verification requirement but said that Texas cannot enforce a provision requiring porn websites to "display health warnings about the effects of the consumption of pornography."
In a 2-1 decision, judges ruled that "the age-verification requirement is rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in preventing minors' access to pornography. Therefore, the age-verification requirement does not violate the First Amendment."
The Texas law was challenged by the owners of Pornhub and other adult websites and an adult-industry lobby group called the Free Speech Coalition. "We disagree strenuously with the analysis of the Court majority," the Free Speech Coalition said. "As the dissenting opinion by Judge [Patrick] Higginbotham makes clear, this ruling violates decades of precedent from the Supreme Court."
A US District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law in August 2023, finding that "Plaintiffs have shown that their First Amendment rights will likely be violated if the statute takes effect, and that they will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction."
But a few weeks later, the 5th Circuit issued a temporary stay that allowed the law to take effect in September 2023. The new ruling issued last week was on the merits of the preliminary injunction.
Court cites “girlie” magazine precedent
The 5th Circuit, generally regarded as one of the most conservative appeals courts, found that the Texas porn-site law should be reviewed on the "rational-basis" standard and not under strict scrutiny. The court panel majority pointed to Ginsberg v. New York, a 1968 Supreme Court ruling about the sale of "girlie" magazines to a 16-year-old at a lunch counter. The Supreme Court in that case upheld a New York criminal obscenity statute that prohibited the knowing sale of obscene materials to minors.
The same principle applies to the Internet, the 5th Circuit majority found. "Because it is never obvious whether an Internet user is an adult or a child, any attempt to identify the user will implicate adults in some way... To suggest protecting children would be so difficult is inconsistent with Ginsberg, where rational basis review was sufficient even though adults would presumably have to identify themselves to buy girlie magazines," the ruling said.
As Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman wrote, the 5th Circuit "panel majority claims the 56-year-old Ginsberg opinion, which dealt with offline retailers, governs the Conlaw [cons utional law] analysis of the Texas law instead of the squarely on-point 1997 Reno v. ACLU and 2004 Ashcroft v. ACLU opinions, both of which dealt with the Internet."
In his dissent, Judge Higginbotham said the majority's attempts to distinguish Ginsberg from later rulings "are unconvincing." Although "Ginsberg remains good law and indubitably recognizes the government's power to protect children from age-inappropriate materials," the Supreme Court "has unswervingly applied strict scrutiny to content-based regulations that limit adults' access to protected speech," he wrote.
The Texas law "limits access to materials that may be denied to minors but remain cons utionally protected speech for adults," Higginbotham wrote. "It follows that the law must face strict scrutiny review because it limits adults' access to protected speech using a content-based distinction—whether that speech is harmful to minors."
Section 230 analysis flawed, professor says
The 5th Circuit panel majority found that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not preempt the Texas law. Goldman called the decision "another entry in the Fifth Circuit's increasingly unstable Section 230 jurisprudence."
Goldman said that judges seem to be saying "that the age authentication mandate only regulates the services' conduct, and thus it doesn't impose liability for third-party content... However, fundamentally, the statute imposes liability for services for publishing third-party content to underage viewers, and Section 230 clearly should apply to that aspect."
Goldman expects this case or similar ones to reach the Supreme Court:
The Texas law also creates privacy problems, Higginbotham wrote in his dissent. It "prohibits commercial en ies and third parties performing age verification from retaining identifying information, but the bill imposes no burden on governmental en ies nor 'any intermediary between the commercial websites and the third-party verifiers' to do the same. Simply claiming that the 'age verification preserves online anonymity' does not make it so," he wrote.This opinion will be appealed to the Supreme Court, alongside other cases over statutes imposing mandatory age authentication. The pro-censorship forces have been angling for an opportunity to challenge Reno v. ACLU and the COPA [Child Online Protection Act] caselaw, hoping that the Supreme Court will forget or overturn that precedent. This highlights the stakes of this and the other cases on their way to SCOTUS: do the foundational Cons utional law principles that have fostered the Internet's success over the past 25+ years still apply, or have the rules since changed and opened the door to rampant government censorship? The Internet's fate–and perhaps the fate of free speech in our country–hangs in the balance.
Platforms could be sued by Texas AG
In the meantime, the Free Speech Coalition said that "platforms that do not implement age verification measures will be at risk of prosecution by the Attorney General, as has been the case since the Fifth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction last September."
The law applies to websites in which more than one-third of the content "is sexual material harmful to minors." Those websites must "use reasonable age verification methods" to limit their material to adults.
The one bit of good news for websites that challenged the law is the 5th Circuit's finding that the requirement to display health warnings about pornography "uncons utionally compel[s] speech" and cannot be enforced.
"The warnings declare the potential harm of minors' engaging with pornography, and they do so in a noticeable fashion—in a way likely to discourage minors from using and adults from allowing their children to use the websites," the court wrote.
Government bodies seeking to restrict commercial speech must show that the restrictions will alleviate a harm to a material degree. Texas failed that test, the court said:
Because Texas has not made such a showing, we adopt the approach recently taken by the Ninth Circuit: "[C]ompelling sellers to warn consumers of a potential 'risk' never confirmed by any regulatory body—or of a hazard not 'known' to more than a small subset of the scientific community—does not directly advance" the government's interest.
Relationships without boundaries or limitations Authentic Damsels
Gubmint inside yo lives!
todays GOP (Gubmint of Putin)
For a nominal fee, there are companies that can provide the formerly home of the free Texans an out of state IP address for their non-big brother personal internet browsing needs.
I see it already, Texas becoming the first official no fapping state in the US.
...after California.
Your side is in on it as well, Homer. As soon as Trump made President.
And daddy? We ain't ever turnin' back.
Just tightening the Bible belt
You ain't ever turnin' Texas, Blake, if that is what this is about, son. No.
You know how the reds are, they always have family to fap to. No need to sin.
I got no problem with porn, nor pros ution. We permit a woman to get an abortion, but, she can't sell her body for sex. Please.
When you understand that in bold is the problem, you'll be a step closer to understanding why you'll lose.
How bout the woman using her body to make a dollar and a cent and the govt sending her to jail for it?
How about a bunny with a pancake on its head?
Although it is legal for a 3rd party to pay both people to have sex, so they both make money from the sexual act. It's called porn.
Yeah, I figured you had nothing but a hatful of rain.
a seeming lack of consistency doesn't negate the fact that it's still her body. Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't see people on the left here celebrating the fact that pros ution is illegal, but boy your side sure did parade that SCOTUS decision around like a banner.
...you pissed all over it anyway when you didn't get your way, just like you pissed all over Trump when you didn't get your way there.
I guess it's just a woman's body when the gov't tells her it is if "she's" in the mood.
One thing's for certain, it's not yours.
That's it?
Let us proceed...
You should latch on to "that's it" before saying "we permitted them to" when referring to their body.
I don't have to. What I said is definitive.
Keep living in the past. That L isn't detouring.
- "The past is prologue."
- "Shakespeare"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
