Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended a critical law at the Supreme Court of the United States yesterday this past week to protect children by requiring online pornography sites to implement reasonable age verification measures. Multiple states across the country are finally stepping up and enacting legislation to protect young people from harmful exposure to pornography.
A similar law introduced by Rep. Sarah Vance out of Homer last legislative session, HB 254, passed with a strong bi-partisan majority out of the Alaska House but was unable to get any traction in the State Senate. Some legislators voiced concerns regarding privacy issues. They were concerned that adults who legally can access “adult entertainment” should not have to provide their personal information to companies which might be hacked or used for villainous purposes.
But this train seems to be picking up steam. In fact, the California Assembly, of all places, UNANIMOUSLY passed age verification with 60 Democrats voting for it. It died in the Senate, not on matters related to the topic, but on concerns about the fiscal note of enforcing the law. I spoke with someone recently in their Legislature, though, who thinks they likely have resolved that issue, and it will move forward this session.
Alaska Family Council is deeply committed to this issue, and has begun working with policy makers on both sides of the aisle to advance legislation to fulfill the minimum responsibility of government to protect vulnerable, young Alaskans. Certainly, parents have a role, just as they do with alcohol, guns, drugs and any number of things that should not be available to young people, but we live in a world that is completely taken over by technology. It is ubiquitous in the lives of young people today.
Protecting those who watch porn legally from possibly having their identity exposed, although that issue is being more and more decreased through better technology, is simply not on the same scale of what many have been calling a “public health crisis” and the “new drug” for many years.
It’s only getting worse and it’s past time to act.
On a very positive note, Brad Littlejohn of the Ethics and Public Policy Center X’d recently ( we don’t say Tweeted anymore right ? ) about the key takeaways from the Paxton oral arguments. We look to be on a good path.
— Not a single justice questions that youth porn exposure is a public health crisis requiring urgent government action.
— Not a single justice seems interested in the porn lobby’s argument that “content filtering”/parental controls can get the job done just fine.
— Many justices openly acknowledged that rapid technological change calls for reconsideration of precedent.
— Therefore, all the justices seemed to think that something like Texas’ AV law (and those of 18 other states) should be able to survive constitutional scrutiny.
— The only question in the room was, “How do we fit this into the rather conflicted precedent on this issue?” On that, Justices Jackson and Sotomayor definitely seemed concerned to uphold the strict scrutiny standard, Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett less clear, and the other five justices open to applying a looser standard.
— Either way, there seemed to be a clear majority in favor of states’ rights to impose age verification on porn sites. It’s just a question of whether they will go ahead and green-light the law now, or let it go through another round in the Circuit Court. Also, just how much freedom will states have on this going forward? Will it be a narrow path or a wide boulevard?
All in all, we had a potentially game-changing day in the history of the internet. Praise God!
Let’s move forward and protect our children.
The views expressed here are those of the author.
9 Comments
I’ve suggested that porn suppliers be required to use a .xxx domain suffix. Then account owners could have their internet providers ban the .xxx from their service plan. Not being a techie I don’t know if this could work. Seems simple.
Are there children as young as this photograph depicts really seeing that much porn? Or are we talking about teenaged youth? If you could provide more specific statistics and more appropriate imagery in relation to the article that would be more helpful. I never once worried about my young children being exposed to porn because I was too worried about them being exposed to the trans community and our family doesn’t allow younger children access to electronics or computers or internet. Teenagers, on the other hand, there is more of a concern for all the obvious reasons. Our teens still don’t have access to electronics or internet without permission and being in the eye- line of adult supervision. How are other parents and families being infiltrated with porn? What are we missing here? I don’t think we are the exception- don’t most parents operate like we do or am I naive in thinking this? The library and grocery shopping have been our biggest threats in this way- where are the kids seeing the porn everyone is so worried about?
MR MINNERY: I AGREE WITH YOU WHOLE HEARTEDLY! LETS dig into this subject and see how genuine you really are shall we?! Porn access for children was a hot burner issue about a year ago in the school library’s. I don’t remember you being in the fight then? WERE YOU? Myself and other Alaskans were screaming at dunleavy to force his AG to enforce existing law, and arrest the defiant librarians. To not avail! We all know you have a special relationship with dunleavy and certainly wouldn’t want to spend any political capital on behalf of those victims in the schools, and thus you didn’t! A few caring intelligent woman got the microphone and forcefully made the case that this perverted grooming needed to be stopped! I don’t remember your presence anywhere near that fight!
Didn’t you just get done with a fundraising event where you spoke on manhood? Did you go over the subject of porn in your speeches? Protecting children from this garbage has to be done, so certainly speaking directly to this subject in regards to manhood is essential! DID YOU?
WEall know how you allowed dunleavy to treat Chloe Cole when she was your guest. THAT WASN’T A GOOD LOOK!
Maybe Jim just Maybe your credibility would increase if you put some of your efforts into actual doing instead of promoting your next fundraising event! JUST SAYING!
If a parent looks into the top 10 biggest safety concerns for children, “internet safety” doesn’t even make the list until about the 20th spot, let alone porn. We asked around: we queried other parents of various backgrounds and lifestyles. Some have kids in public school, some in private school, some in a Christian school, some homeschooled…all with varying ages of children… out of 20 families asked, NONE of them were worried about porn as a top hazard. Most parents were more worried about nutrition, choking, poisoning, sleep health, falling, broken bones, fire hazards, carbon monoxide poisoning, being kidnapped, drowning, screen time, spiritual health, being attacked my dogs or trampled by moose, healthy relationships and bullying to name a few. This isn’t to say that parents aren’t concerned at all about porn coming in contact with their children- I’m sharing our findings because porn didn’t even reach the lips of any of the participants who were asked until AFTER they responded and we brought it up. I think MOST parents who have the right focuses and aren’t relying on a device to keep their child “busy” aren’t remotely worried about porn and their kids… most of the parents who read Alaska Watchman fall into this mindset and category I would imagine. I think the target demographic for this article and the information provided would be more relevant for parents who are relying on devices to babysit their kids and don’t have rules in place about healthy amount of screen time or safety standards in place for use of devices.
Please provide more information that is more relevant to your readership the next time this topic comes up. Thanks!
I thought y’all were for smaller government.
Do you need your porn regardless of whether the individuals in the frame have been trafficked, exploited and/or abused?
Do you not care of the poisonous effects on children, as well as men and women?
I do not know about the rest of you, but I am way past caring for those who use others sexually or the negative effects downstream that are caused by their abuse.
I just cannot believe I am reading this from one of the take-down team that chased Conservative Rep Dave Eastman out of town.
it’s real and we’re in trouble!
I no long support the Minnery’s for that very reason.