Context:

The US Supreme Court has upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for users accessing pornography sites through government ID or face scans. The law, challenged by PornHub and others, was argued to infringe upon free speech by placing undue burdens on adults who wish to access such content. Texas defended the legislation as a measure to protect minors, with over a dozen states enacting similar laws. A 6-3 decision by the justices reflected ideological lines, with Justice Clarence Thomas affirming that states have the power to mandate age verification to prevent minors from accessing explicit content. Critics and lawyers for the adult film industry raised concerns about privacy and potential misuse of the law to restrict other adult content, citing previous Supreme Court rulings on related issues.

Dive Deeper:

• The Supreme Court's decision supports Texas's 2023 law requiring age verification on pornography sites, challenged by PornHub and others on grounds of free speech infringement due to burdens on adults.

• Texas has maintained that the law's primary objective is to protect minors from accessing explicit content, aligning with similar legislation passed in over a dozen states.

• The court's 6-3 ruling was along ideological lines, with Justice Clarence Thomas stating that age verification is within states' authority to prevent minors from viewing sexually explicit material.

• During a two-hour hearing, justices showed concern for both protecting minors and preserving free speech rights, while lawyers for adult sites relied on a 2004 precedent against criminalizing content potentially harmful to minors.

• The adult film industry expressed privacy concerns, arguing that requiring government ID submissions online exposes users to risks like inadvertent disclosures and hacks.

• Critics worry the Texas law might extend to restrict other adult-oriented content, while Texas lawyers referred to a 1968 precedent supporting state regulation of obscenity sales to minors.

• The decision highlights ongoing tensions between child protection measures and the preservation of constitutional rights in the digital age.