The US Supreme Court by a 6-3 majority has decided to uphold the HB1181 law that mandates age verification through governmental IDs while accessing adult websites.The law case pitted protecting the interest of children against harmful content against the concerns of violation of freedom of speech of adult.The majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas noted said Texas'...
The US Supreme Court by a 6-3 majority has decided to uphold the HB1181 law that mandates age verification through governmental IDs while accessing adult websites.The law case pitted protecting the interest of children against harmful content against the concerns of violation of freedom of speech of adult.The majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas noted said Texas' law advances an important interest of shielding children from sexually explicit content and doesn't overly burden adults because it relies on established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data.
Background
The case arose as appeal against the new Texas act that mandated age verification aimed at porn websites termed as HB 1181.The law mandated the websites displaying such content to verify users are 18 or older using government issued IDs or payment data.With Violations resulting in imposing of heft penalties. The law enacted in total 13 states.Petitioners primarily the Free Speech Coalition argue the law infringes on adults' First Amendment rights.
The district allowed the preliminary injunction, holding that other less effective verification methods exist. This decision was however reversed by the fifth circuit court holding that the law protects the interest of minors from harmful content.The Supreme Court denied a stay but granted certiorari to review the law's constitutionality, highlighting the evolution of internet access and its impact on minors.
Features of the Act
The law targets commercial websites where over one-third of material is deemed harmful to minors, using criteria adapted from the Millers obscenity test.Covered entities must verify users are 18 or older using government ID or transactional data. Violations can result in civil penalties up to $10,000 daily, and $250,000 if minors gain access. The law allows third-party age verification and is enforceable by the Texas attorney general. At least 21 other states have adopted similar age-verification laws.
Submissions by the Petitioners
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the act was inherently unconstitutional due to its privacy infringing nature.They argued that the act infringes the First Amendment on the rights to access protected sexual speech. They contended the law should undergo the principle of strict scrutiny, as it imposes content-based restrictions and is not the least restrictive means. The counsel put forward alternatives like content filters and ISP based restrictions. The petitioner also raised privacy concerns.
FIndings of the court
The Court in a 6-3 majority favoured the Act. The Court confirmed that states have a valid interest in protecting children from harmful content and are within their ambit to make age verification mandatory. The Court reiterated that the First Amendment does not extend to allowing content harmful to children without age verification. While acknowledging that age verification burdens adult access, the Court held that this burden is incidental and similar to regulations on alcohol or firearms. Furthermore, the bench declined to apply the strict scrutiny principle, finding it not necessary for a law that does not ban speech but merely puts conditions on access to pornographic content based on age, and applied intermediate scrutiny. The Court distinguished H.B. 1181 from earlier cases, where laws broadly restricted access to both adults and minors. Since H.B. 1181 still allows adult access after verification and aligns with established legal principles, the Court deemed the Act constitutional under intermediate scrutiny. The dissenting judges, while agreeing with the state's power to make regulations to protect the interests of minors, rejected applying mere intermediate scrutiny, observing that the nature of mandating verification by H.B. 1181 acts as imposing a chilling effect on free speech. The bench observed that by furnishing personal information to website operators, the threat of privacy violation and unlawful use of such information may arise. Holding that since the H.B. 1181 law is in the nature of monitoring and assessing content, the strict scrutiny principle should have been applied, which states that least restrictive means should be adopted to achieve the state's interest. The dissenting judges rejected the reasoning of the majority opinion decision to adopt intermediate scrutiny as picking the desired outcome (protecting the law) and choosing the most favorable scrutiny. Furthermore, by upholding the law, the Court allows Texas to choose more restrictive measures for age verification, even when less burdensome alternatives are available.
Case Title: FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC ET AL. v. PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS