�鶹��ýIOS

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether a Texas law requiring age verification for websites publishing sexually explicit content, to prevent access by minors, violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

Action

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold Texas's age-verification law for sites featuring adult content. The Court's decision overturned precedent set by earlier cases like United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000) and Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002).

Facts/Syllabus

The Texas age-verification law, House Bill 1181 (2023), aims to prevent minors from viewing sexual content fully protected for adult audiences. Under the law, websites Texas deems to be at least “one-third” composed of “sexual material harmful to minors” must “verify that an individual attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older” before allowing that individual to access the site’s content. To verify the age of visitors, the law requires sites to employ “a commercial age verification system” using either government ID or “a commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data to verify the age of an individual.”

(H.B. 1181 also includes a “disclosure requirement” compelling websites that the state deems to include at least “one-third” “sexual material harmful to minors” to post three warnings on their landing pages, “in 14-point font or larger,” about the alleged dangers of viewing sexual material. The Fifth Circuit properly held this provision violates the First Amendment’s protection against compelled speech, and it is not at issue here.)

Texas’ statute echoes the restrictions on access to adult content this Court considered in a series of cases decided a generation ago. In assessing the constitutionality of those statutes — each of which imposed similar burdens on adult access to lawful sexual expression — this Court repeatedly and consistently reached the same conclusion: The First Amendment demands strict scrutiny. This mandate imposes a content-based burden on Texans seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights. By requiring adults to identify themselves before they can access the protected content the law singles out for special restriction, the law “effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another” (Reno v. ACLU).

Importance of Case

The decision effectively reverses decades of Supreme Court precedent that protects the free speech rights of adults to access information without jumping over government age-verification hurdles. Requiring adults to verify their ages before accessing protected content imposes a significant burden on the exercise of First Amendment rights online. By forcing adults to identify themselves in this manner, Texas’ statute operates as a content-based restriction on speech. 

�鶹��ýIOS filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that free expression “requires vigilant protection, and the First Amendment doesn’t permit short cuts.” �鶹��ýIOS believes that the government's efforts to restrict adults’ access to constitutionally protected information must be carefully tailored, and that Texas’ law failed to do so. Because of this ruling, adults in the State of Texas must upload sensitive information to access speech that the First Amendment fully protects for them. This wrongheaded, invasive result overturns a generation of precedent and sacrifices anonymity and privacy in the process.