stricter porn age verification

US Lawsuit puts porn access age verification in the spotlight

The U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton has put a spotlight on a Texas law passed in 2023 requiring websites with explicit material to implement age-verfication mechanisms to protect minors from exposure to harmful content. Basically, this piece of legislation requires pornography distributors on websites which contain more than one-third of “sexual material harmful to minors” to require “reasonable age verification methods.”

This court case raises questions about whether the right of adults to anonymously access pornography should outweigh society’s responsibility to shield children from explicit material. From some of the oral arguments in the case heard over the past week, the State of Texas notes that “Through smartphones and other devices…children today have instantaneous access to unlimited amounts of hardcore pornography,” citing a study in their legal brief that 53% of children possess a smartphone by age 11. Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. notes, “Technological access to pornography obviously has exploded,” adding that “the nature of pornography…has also changed.”

As technology expands and more research highlights the exposure to pornography has dropped from 16 to 11 or even 10 years of age and the harms and long-term impacts, this issue, now more than ever, demands a better response from lawmakers and the judiciary. The broader societal harm caused by pornography, including its damaging effects on relationships and mental health.

A Christian Post article on the case calls for stronger measures to protect children and urges Christians to recommit to promoting healthy views of sexuality. The article notes, “We as a society have both the right and the obligation to protect our children from having their hearts and minds warped and poisoned by exposure to sexually obscene material. The Supreme Court has a great opportunity to strike a blow for decency and for children by upholding Free Speech v. Paxton.”

Article source

Scroll to Top