The Supreme Court
Samuel Corum / AFP via Getty Images
hide
tilting legend
Samuel Corum / AFP via Getty Images
The Supreme Court
Samuel Corum / AFP via Getty Images
The United States Supreme Court on Friday confirmed a law of Texas forcing consumers to provide age verification In order to access commercial websites that provide sexually explicit equipment. It was the first time that the court has required requirements for adult consumers to protect minors from such access.
The defenders of freedom of disposition argued that if the objective of the law is to limit the access of minors to the sexually explicit online content, it is too vague and imposes significant charges for adult access to an expression protected by the Constitution. Texas lawyers said in their fileAnd during the arguments, that the opponents of the law did not show a single person whose rights have been “cooled” by the latter.
By a vote of 6-3 along the ideological lines, The court agreed with Texas, claiming that the law “only bound to discourse protected from adults”.
Texas measurement, promulgated in 2023, aimed to protect children under the age of 18 against exposure to sexually explicit materials.
This did this by demanding that each user, including adults, first provides proof, generally via an identification issued by the government, that he is at least 18 years old. The status applies to all websites containing content which is a third party or more of “sexually suggestive” and “harmful for children”.
More decisions of the Supreme Court from today:
The term “harmful for children” means is questionable because, according to websites, the term covers any sexually suggestive material, including romantic novels and listed films R.
The Free Speech Coalition, a professional association of the adult industry and several producers of the adult industry challenged the law before the courts, claiming that it violates the guarantee of the first amendment to freedom of expression and expression.
The groups have noted, among other things, that if the status prevents companies from preserving identification information, it does not prohibit the transfer of this information or imposes any other protection against disclosure to protect the privacy of adults. In addition, the challengers have maintained the defense by the state of the law are disintegrated in the light that it exempts from the coverage of the law.
Federal judge David Alan Ezra, a man named in relation to Reagan, initially prevented the law from taking effect, on the grounds that it is probably unconstitutional.
But a fifth appeal circuit committee voted 2 against 1 to maintain the law, opening the way to what it takes. The Court of Appeal said that because the State justified the law as being rationally linked to its objective of protecting children, that is all that is necessary. The so-called rational basic test used by the Court of Appeal essentially means that a law adopts the rally as long as the Legislative Assembly has had a rational justification. This is the least rigorous standard in the courtyard, and the challengers argued that it was far too lax and ignored the impact on adult users.
