Quote:
Originally Posted by Matyko
Can someone explain please what is this about?
|
Hi Matyko,
I think the best explanation is within the text of the Woodhull press release, pasted below in it’s entirety, as no brief explanation of this complicated matter does it justice:
Woodhull Freedom Foundation to SCOTUS: Texas’s Age Verification Law is Unconstitutional!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — September 23, 2024 — Washington, DC
WASHINGTON, DC September 23, 2024
The Woodhull Freedom Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and TechFreedom have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, arguing that Texas’s age verification law H.B. 1181 violates First Amendment rights and threatens sexual freedom online. Woodhull’s participation in this case was made possible by a generous donation from internet hosting provider MojoHost. Ricci Levy, Woodhull’s CEO, states: “We’re thankful to MojoHost for funding our brief, enabling us to present these crucial arguments to the Supreme Court.”
The brief contends that H.B. 1181’s requirement for websites to verify users’ ages before allowing access to sexual content imposes unconstitutional burdens on adults’ right to access protected speech. Specifically, the law would force adults to sacrifice their privacy and anonymity in order to view legal sexual material online. HB 1181 will unconstitutionally chill, and in some instances entirely block, adult access to lawful online speech.
“Sexual freedom is a fundamental human right critical to human dignity and liberty,” said Ricci Levy, CEO of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation. “By requiring invasive age verification, this law chills protected speech and violates the rights of consenting adults to access lawful sexual content online. Courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have consistently ruled that age verification requirements for accessing protected content are unconstitutional when less restrictive alternatives exist. This principle was reaffirmed in Ashcroft v. ACLU, where the Court held that protecting minors doesn’t justify imposing such burdens on adults. We support protecting children from inappropriate content, but this must be achieved through less intrusive means that preserve the rights of adults.”
Brad Mitchell, President of MojoHost, says, “I have tremendous faith in the wisdom of SCOTUS to determine the unconstitutionality of HB 1181 and to have the courage to strike down this bad legislation. It not only fails at its stated purpose of protecting minors, but it silences American voices while turning up the volume on the internet from every other corner of the earth without repercussion, bringing even worse material center stage. Thank you to attorneys Corey Silverstein and Lawrence Walters for their hard work in support of justice with the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, EFF, and serving the best interests of our great country.”
The organizations argue that the law’s broad scope – applying to any site with one-third or more “harmful to minors” content – would impact many general interest websites and force adults to verify their age even to access non-sexual material. This imposes an unjustified burden on First Amendment rights.
“Mandatory online age verification robs people of anonymity, discourages access by privacy-minded users, and could entirely block some adults from accessing constitutionally protected speech,” said Lisa Femia, Staff Attorney at EFF.
The brief urges the Supreme Court to apply strict scrutiny in evaluating the law, as it substantially burdens adults’ rights to access protected speech. It argues that less restrictive alternatives, like voluntary content filters, could protect minors without infringing on adults’ rights.
The sweeping restrictions imposed by the law could affect a wide range of websites, potentially including those focused on sexual health, education, and other topics not typically considered pornographic. The law’s implementation could have far-reaching consequences for content providers and online information consumers.
“If the Fifth Circuit’s decision upholding the law is allowed to stand, decades of First Amendment jurisprudence would be undone. That would clear the way to imposing restrictions on access to many other forms of protected speech including reproductive health, guns, pharmaceuticals, and countless other topics,” said Lawrence Walters, General Counsel for Woodhull. “This case is of critical importance to the preservation of First Amendment rights,” he added.
“I am grateful to organizations like Woodhull, the EFF, and TechFreedom for having the courage to stand on the front lines and speak out when a law like H.B. 1181 tramples on the First Amendment,” said attorney Corey Silverstein. “We are confident that the Supreme Court will correct the error made by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and uphold prior case precedent in support of free speech,” Silverstein continued.
Texas has a legitimate interest in protecting children from harmful materials. However, its efforts to accomplish that goal cannot be at the expense of the rights of adults to access constitutionally protected speech. Woodhull and EFF call on the Court to strike down H.B. 1181 as an unconstitutional restriction on First Amendment rights.
Read the brief (link is above in this thread!)
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation,
Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and TechFreedom:
Lawrence G. Walters, Walters Law Group
Corey D. Silverstein, Silverstein Legal
Kevin S. Toll, Silverstein Legal
Aaron Mackey, Counsel of Record, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Elizabeth Femia, Electronic Frontier Foundation
David Greene, Electronic Frontier Foundation