The United States Supreme Court The Texas Law that demands Verify the age of users to access pages with pornographic content. With six votes in favor and three againstthe Court declared constitutional the rule promoted in 2023backed by all Conservative judges and rejected by the three Liberal magistrates.
The Texan Law establishes that any site where more than a third of the content is considered “Sexual material harmful to minors” It must implement mechanisms to confirm the age of users. To meet that demand, visitors must present a Official identification issued by the Governmentwear Biometric verification or other systems considered reasonably acceptable in the marketas transaction data with credit card.
The central objective of this legislation is prevent that under 18 access online pornographic materiala growing concern in the context of the use of the Internet between teenagers.
The porn industry denounced a privacy risk
The main commercial group that represents the adult entertainment industry filed a lawsuit against the law, claiming that the age verification imposed by Texas puts in danger The privacy of millions of adults and raises serious risks of Data filtration personal
The plaintiffs indicated that the collection of sensitive information, such as official identifications or Biometric datarepresents a direct threat to freedom of expression guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution.
The judge Clarence Thomasauthor of the majority ruling, defended the law pointing out that Several websites already applied verification systems For years. “The history of decades of some pornographic websites that require age verification refutes any argument that the impediment of verification is an unsurpassed obstacle to users,” he wrote in his opinion.
Thomas argued that the legislation pursued A legitimate interest of the state of Texasto protect minors, and that the mechanism chosen for that purpose was adequate and not excessively restrictive.
Questions and confirmation of the failure
The highest court ratified the resolution of the Fifth circuitthat he had already spoken in favor of the constitutionality of the Texan Standard. However, the scope of the failure It is limited exclusively to Texas legislation and does not affect similar laws approved in other states for now.
In the dissident opinion, the judge Elena Kaganaccompanied by Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jacksonadmitted the importance of protect minorsbut he doubted that the path chosen by Texas was the least restrictive to adult rights.
“Many reasonable people consider that the speech in question is disgusting and harmful to any audience. But the First amendment Protect these sexually explicit materials for all adults. Therefore, a state cannot pursue that expression, as Texas has done here, more than necessary to prevent children from reaching, ”Kagan wrote.
The magistrate stressed that The balance between child protection and individual freedoms It must be resolved without violating fundamental rights.
Reactions found: Freedom of Expression vs. Protection of minors
The American union for civil liberties (ACLU)which represents the porn industry in this case, described the decision as A serious setback for freedom of expression. Its national legal director, Cecillia Wangwarned that “the Supreme Court has departed from decades of consolidated precedents that guaranteed that large -range laws, supposedly for the benefit of minors, did not limit adult access to materials protected by the first amendment.”
Wang said that the ruling leaves the door open so that other states approve laws that, on behalf of childhood, end restricting constitutional rights of adults.
In contrast, the National Center on Sexual Exploitationone of the organizations that promotes stricter regulations on access to explicit content, celebrated judicial support. Dani Pintersenior vice president of the legal area, said: “This ruling paves the way for other states to approve similar laws and will have a deep positive impact when preventing children from being exposed to online pornography.”
The center said that the pronouncement of the Supreme Court could become legal precedent to strengthen the protection of minors in the digital environment through most severe legal restrictions.
Source: Ambito
