WASHINGTON — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Friday submitted his brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the state’s age verification law, HB 1181, which is being challenged by a group led by the Free Speech Coalition (FSC).
In March, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals partially upheld the law, which was challenged as an infringement of the First Amendment’s free speech protections by the FSC, along with an array of adult platforms and workers, including MG Premium and MG Freesites, which are now Aylo companies; Webgroup Czech Republic; NKL Associates; Sonesta Technologies; Sonesta Media; Yellow Production; Paper Street Media; Neptune Media; Mediame; Midus Holdings; and Jane Doe, an adult content creator.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in July, agreeing to hear the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan. 15.
The issue at hand is whether the 5th Circuit applied the proper level of scrutiny to the law, which the FSC-led group argues was not the case. In his brief, Paxton disputed this claim.
“Texas seeks to protect kids from some of the most prurient sexual content imaginable. And the means Texas has chosen is appropriate,” he wrote. “Texas has addressed only websites dedicated to pornography, has allowed them to comply by using common age-verification technology, and has not imposed criminal penalties. Such a modest but important law satisfies any level of scrutiny.”
He also reiterated debunked theories on the harms of pornography.
“Pornography harms children, a fact petitioners nowhere deny,” he said. “Children who habitually view pornography are more likely to exhibit behavioral problems such as emulating sexual strangulation, dating violence, and sexual coercion. Adolescent viewers are thus at higher risk of intimate partner cyberstalking and adult perpetration of child sexual abuse.”
Adult industry attorney and First Amendment expert Corey D. Silverstein, who filed an amicus brief in the Texas case on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, expressed his position on the Paxton brief.
“I’m not even slightly surprised by Mr. Paxton’s arguments,” he told XBIZ. “His briefing only emboldens my belief that he has little regard for the First Amendment or existing case precedent.
“I believe that the Supreme Court will utilize their wisdom and see right through the weak argument that reasonable review is the correct level of scrutiny on this case — he couldn’t be any more wrong.”
