From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Supreme Court case
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton United States Supreme Court case about whether states may require Internet pornography websites to verify the age of viewers in order to prevent access by minors .
In 2023, the Texas Legislature enacted House Bill 1181,[ 1] [ 2] bipartisan vote.[ 1] Free Speech Coalition , a trade association for the pornography and adult entertainment industry, sued to challenge the law.[ 2] [ 2]
The district court struck down the provision,[ 1] United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that ruling and upheld the age-verification requirement.[ 2] [ 2]
The majority opinion for the Fifth Circuit panel was by Judge Jerry Smith , who said that it was within the state's legitimate interest in preventing minors' access to pornography.[ 1] Patrick Higginbotham dissented, saying that the law infringed adults' protected speech and had chilling effects .[ 1]
The Supreme Court declined to block the Texas law pending appeal.[ 2]
Applying rational basis review , the Supreme Court upheld state laws banning the sale of pornography to minors in Ginsberg v. New York ordinary legal test for obscenity as to adults.[ 3]
In Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union II preliminary injunction against the Child Online Protection Act , a federal law that required age verification for commercial websites hosting "material harmful to children". In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Kennedy , the court applied strict scrutiny and said that the government had not shown that voluntary use of filtering software by parents – a less restrictive alternative – was inadequate to meet the government's interest in protecting minors.[ 3]
The Supreme Court announced on July 2, 2024, that it would hear the case.[ 3] [ 2]
^ a b c d e Jankowski, Philip (March 8, 2024). "Texas can enforce new age-verification law for porn sites, court rules" . The Dallas Morning News . Retrieved July 2, 2024 . ^ a b c d e f g Stohr, Greg (July 2, 2024). "Porn-Site Age Verification Law Will Get Supreme Court Scrutiny" . Bloomberg Law . Retrieved July 3, 2024 . ^ a b c Volokh, Eugene (July 2, 2024). "S. Ct. Will Decide: May States Require Age Verification to Access Porn Sites?" . The Volokh Conspiracy Reason . Retrieved July 3, 2024 .
Unprotected
Incitement sedition Defamation andfalse speech Fighting words andheckler's veto True threats Obscenity
Rosen v. United States United States v. One Book Called Ulysses Roth v. United States One, Inc. v. Olesen Smith v. California Marcus v. Search Warrant Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day Jacobellis v. Ohio Quantity of Books v. Kansas Ginzburg v. United States Memoirs v. Massachusetts Redrup v. New York Ginsberg v. New York Stanley v. Georgia United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs Kois v. Wisconsin Miller v. California Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film Jenkins v. Georgia Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut People v. Freeman United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. Reno v. ACLU United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. Ashcroft v. ACLU I United States v. American Library Ass'n Ashcroft v. ACLU II Nitke v. Gonzales United States v. Williams American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland United States v. Kilbride United States v. Stevens Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Speech integral
Strict scrutiny Overbreadth Vagueness Symbolic speech Content-based Content-neutral
Compelled speech Compelled subsidy
Government grants Government Loyalty oaths School speech Public employees Hatch Act andLicensing and Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations Lehman v. Shaker Heights Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar Bigelow v. Virginia Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro Carey v. Population Services International Bates v. State Bar of Arizona In re Primus Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association Friedman v. Rogers Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego In re R.M.J. Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind State University of New York v. Fox Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network Edenfield v. Fane United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. United States v. United Foods Inc. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly Thompson v. Western States Medical Center Nike, Inc. v. Kasky Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman Matal v. Tam Iancu v. Brunetti Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Vidal v. Elster Campaign finance Anonymous speech State action Official retaliation Boycotts Prisons
