Will Creeley, Bob Corn-Revere, and Ronnie London from FIRE delve into the Supreme Court's ruling on age verification laws in relation to online adult content. They discuss the complex balance between protecting minors and safeguarding free speech rights. The conversation highlights the potential for increased identity-based access barriers and raises concerns over the ruling's implications for anonymous speech. They also question the Court's reliance on assumed needs for child protection without scientific backing, posing critical challenges for future online speech regulations.
46:42
forum Ask episode
web_stories AI Snips
view_agenda Chapters
menu_book Books
auto_awesome Transcript
info_circle Episode notes
insights INSIGHT
Texas Age Verification Law Explained
Texas law HB 1181 requires age verification for sites with over 33% adult content to protect minors.
The Fifth Circuit surprisingly applied rational basis review, not strict scrutiny, which the Supreme Court later overturned.
insights INSIGHT
New Partially Protected Speech Category
The Court reinterpreted prior rulings to say age verification imposes a slight burden, applying intermediate rather than strict scrutiny.
It established a new "partially protected speech" category for adult sexual content, weakening protections.
insights INSIGHT
Online Age Verification vs Physical Stores
Online age verification differs fundamentally from brick-and-mortar ID checks since it requires all users to verify before access.
This broad requirement creates privacy risks and burdens speech beyond what physical stores impose.
Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode
how the American left and right relentlessly censor each other
Nat Hentoff
In 'Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee', Nat Hentoff critiques the resurgence of censorship in education, government, and mainstream society. He presents numerous cases of censorship, arguing that the desire to censor is stronger than the desire for free speech. Hentoff emphasizes the importance of protecting free expression, even when it is unpopular or offensive, as it is essential for a healthy democracy.
FIRE staff responds to the Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton that addresses a Texas law requiring age verification for accessing certain sexual material online.
01:21 How the case wound up at the Supreme Court 06:57 Bob’s experience with arguing strict scrutiny in the courts 09:32 Ronnie’s perspective on the ruling 10:22 Brick + mortar stores vs. online sites 12:07 Has the Court established a new category of partially protected speech? 13:36 What speech is still subject to strict scrutiny after the ruling? 15:55 What does it mean to address the “work as a whole” in the internet context? 17:24 What modifications to the ruling, if any, would have satisfied FIRE? 18:06 What are the alternatives to address the internet’s risks toward minors? 20:16 For non-lawyer Americans, what is the best normative argument against the ruling? 22:38 Why is this ruling a “canary in the coal mine?” 23:36 How is age verification really about identity verification? 24:42 Why did the Court assume the need to protect children without citing any scientific findings in its ruling? 26:17 Does the ruling allow for more identity-based access barriers to lawful online speech? 28:04 Will Americans have to show ID to get into a public library? 29:30 Why does stare decisis seem to mean little to nothing to the Court? 32:08 Will there be a problem with selective enforcement of content-based restrictions on speech? 34:12 Could the ruling spark a patchwork of state laws that create digital borders? 36:26 Is there any other instance where the Court has used intermediate scrutiny in a First Amendment case? 37:29 Is the Court going to keep sweeping content-based statutes in the “incidental effect on speech” bucket? 38:14 Is sexual speech considered obscene? 40:33 How does the ruling affect adult content on mainstream social media platforms like Reddit and X? 43:27 Where does the ruling leave us on age verification laws?