Tangle - Porn age-verification law upheld by Supreme Court.

Episode Date: July 8, 2025

On June 27, the Supreme Court voted 6–3 to uphold a Texas law requiring pornography websites to verify the age of their visitors. The law, HB 1181, compels sites that contain more than one-third “sexual material harmful to minors” to use “reasonable age verification methods” (such as government identification or other personal documents) to determine whether users are over the age of 18. The challengers argued the law violates the First Amendment by creating an unfair free-speech burden on adults. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer, Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle podcast. The place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. Today is Tuesday, July 8th, and we're gonna be talking about Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v Paxton,

a Supreme Court case about pornography and age verification laws, and lots of good, interesting debates here. So we're going to jump right in. I'm going to send it over to John for today's main podcast and I'll be back for my take. Thanks Isaac and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today.

First up, the official death toll from flooding in central Texas has risen to 104. Rescuers are searching for many still missing, including 10 girls and one counselor from Camp Mystic in Kerr County. Number 2. President Donald Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, where the two discussed a potential ceasefire deal in Gaza and a plan to relocate Gazans out of the strip. 3. President Trump said he would levy tariffs between 25% and 40% on imports from 14 countries

starting August 1, as his administration continues to try to negotiate trade deals. The individual duties are similar to those originally announced in Trump's Liberation Day tariffs. 4. Federal agents killed a gunman who opened fire at a border patrol facility in McAllen, Texas. One officer was injured in the shooting. And number five, measles cases in the United States reached their highest level since 2000,

the year the country in the Southwest. Sure, well, the Supreme Court just decided one big case and punted on another. The one big case they decided was a challenge to a Texas law that basically imposed age verification requirements for people who wanted to access porn sites on the internet. The Supreme Court considered a First Amendment challenge. Basically, adults were challenging the law, saying that these age verification requirements infringed on their First Amendment rights to read content that they wanted to see on the internet. The Supreme Court reviewed the law and upheld it. They said the law was constitutional.

On June 27th, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold a Texas law requiring pornography websites to verify the age of their visitors. The law, HB 1181, compels sites that contain more than one-third sexual material harmful to minors to use reasonable age verification methods, such as governmental identification or other personal documents, to determine whether users are over the age of 18. The challengers argued the law violates the First Amendment by creating an unfair free speech burden on adults. HB 1181 passed the Texas Legislature in 2023, but a federal judge blocked it from going

into effect, finding that the law violated the First Amendment by interfering with adults' access to protected speech. Texas appealed the decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the state. Free Speech Coalition Inc., a nonprofit representing the adult film industry, then petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case. The court heard oral arguments in January. The central issue before the court was whether the Fifth Circuit should have used a stricter

standard of review to determine whether the Texas law violated the First Amendment. The challengers argued that the court should have assessed the case through strict scrutiny, which presumes a law is unconstitutional before it is considered. The court used this standard when deciding Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, a 2004 ruling that struck down a federal law outlawing commercial online content harmful to minors. The challengers in Free Speech Coalition said HB 1181 raised similar free speech issues because it forced adults to submit personal information which could be vulnerable to hacking

or tracking to access the sites. Conversely, Texas held that the age verification requirement did not meaningfully hinder adults' access to these sites and thus did not merit a higher level of scrutiny. The state argued that its provision was equivalent to existing identification requirements for brick-and-mortar adult content stores that the Supreme Court has already found to be constitutional. Rating for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Fifth Circuit should have used a higher standard, but not the strict scrutiny requested by the challengers.

Instead, he found that the law should be subject to intermediate scrutiny, and that it still passed constitutional muster under this test. "'The power to require age verification is within a state's authority to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit content," Thomas wrote. Unlike a store clerk, a website operator cannot look at its visitors and estimate their ages. Without a requirement to submit proof of age, even clearly underage minors would be able to access sexual content undetected. Justice Elena Kagan dissented in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Katanji

Brown Jackson, arguing that the court should have sent the case back down to lower court under a higher standard. Under ordinary First Amendment doctrine, this court should subject H.B. 1181 to strict scrutiny. The law covers speech constitutionally protected for adults, impedes adults' ability to view that speech, and imposes that burden based on the speech's content — case closed, Kagan wrote. And making the right answer yet more obvious, we have said as much four times before when reviewing statutes imposing similar content-based burdens on protected sexually explicit speech,

so the case is closed even tighter. Today, we'll share views on the case from the right and the left, and then Isaac's tape. We'll be right back after this quick break. Discover the magic of BetMGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there, with over 3,000 games to choose from including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun and make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit betmgm.com for

terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you Please contact connects Ontario at 1 8 6 6 5 3 1 2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge But MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario All right first up let's start with what the right is saying. Many on the right support the decision, arguing it reflects a modern understanding of technology and the internet. Some say the ruling risks eroding free speech protections.

Others suggest the law is necessary to protect minors from the pervasive effects of porn. In City Journal, John Ketchum wrote, the Supreme Court is right to age-gate porn. With similar laws now on the books in at least 21 other states, the ruling empowers state authorities to shield children from sexually explicit online materials, and may also open the door to regulating minors' access to social media, Ketchum said. Instead of remanding the case to the lower courts to determine whether HB 1181 meets immediate scrutiny, the court conducted the lower courts to determine whether HB 1181 meets immediate scrutiny, the court conducted the analysis itself and found that neither prong posed a substantial hurdle.

Precedent has long established that the state's interest in protecting children from harmful sexual material is not only important, but compelling. Free Speech Coalition thus reflects a pragmatic recognition of the Internet's contemporary dangers for children. As the majority observed, with the rise of the smartphone and instant streaming, many adolescents can now access vast libraries of video content, both benign and obscene, at almost any time and place, with an ease that would have been unimaginable when the courts decided its earlier precedents," Ketchum wrote. The harms children face online are more widespread

and better understood than ever. Free speech coalition gives states the legal tools to respond. In the American Enterprise Institute, Clay Calvert argued doctrinal drift erodes online speech protection and court credibility. Supreme Court opinions typically are governed by well-established doctrines for determining

whether a statute passes First Amendment muster. Sometimes, however, the court invents walk-arounds to dodge the application of those rules because their use would likely produce a result affecting a statute's constitutionality that the justices might not favor. Last Friday's Sixth Justice Majority opinion in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton reflects such doctrinal evasion, and unless lower courts limit the decision to its facts could chip away at free speech rights. In justifying the majority's decision to dodge strict scrutiny, Justice Thomas called the test unforgiving and ill-suited for such

nuanced work. The only principled way to give due consideration to both the First Amendment and states legitimate interests in protecting minors is to employ a less exacting standard. Enter intermediate scrutiny, saving the statute," Calvert wrote. Inventing a workaround from strict scrutiny handed Texas a popular win in protecting minors from online pornography. One must now question how far lower courts will stretch the decision and what exemption from strict scrutiny the court will carve out next that makes it easier to restrict controversial expression. In the New York Times, David French said, one of the worst industries in the world gets

its comeuppance. From left to right, all nine justices agree that pornography can cause great harm to children. All nine agree not merely that children have no constitutional right to view it, but also that the state has a compelling interest in blocking their access," French wrote. And it's no wonder. Our nation's young people are in the midst of a virtual pornography pandemic. The combination of early exposure and the sheer violence and cruelty in so much modern pornography means that children are getting a sex education in exploitation.

Thomas was right about the outcome, but Kagan was right about the test. A law aimed at the content of speech should receive strict scrutiny, but Texas law should still have survived even the most exacting review, French said. No one thinks that the Texas law will solve the problem of childhood exposure to porn. There are simply too many workarounds, including the use of VPNs. But even raising a speed bump is worth the small incidental burden on adults' rights. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left opposes the ruling, arguing it ignores privacy concerns and risks Alright, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left opposes the ruling, arguing it ignores privacy concerns and risks restricting free

expression. Some say the majority ignored clear precedent to reach its desired outcome. Others see the decision as a political opportunity for Democrats to stand up for free speech. In The Verge, Audie Robertson wrote, The Supreme Court just upended Internet law. Even the best age verification usually requires collecting information that links people directly or indirectly to some of their most sensitive web history, creating an almost inherent risk of leaks. The only silver lining is that current systems seem to at least largely make good-faith attempts

to avoid intentional snooping, and legislation includes attempts to discourage unnecessary data retention," Robertson said. The problem is, proponents of these systems had the strongest incentives to make privacy-preserving efforts while age verification was still a contested legal issue. Any breaches could have undercut the claim that age-gating is harmless. Unfortunately, the incentives are now almost perfectly flipped. Companies benefit from collecting and exploiting as much data as they can. We're pretty much left speculating about how malicious state attorneys general might be. It's easy to imagine LGBTQ resources or sex education sites

becoming targets despite having the exact kind of social value the law is supposed to exempt, Robertson wrote. The question, what is porn, is going to have a tremendous impact on the internet, not just because of what courts believe is obscene for minors, but because of what website operators believe the courts believe is obscene. This is a subtle distinction, but an important one. In public knowledge, John Bregmeier said, protecting kids shouldn't mean weakening the First Amendment.

The court has long recognized that minors may be shielded from sexually explicit material that is not obscene for adults, but it has also insisted that kids should retain full access to protected speech. The constitutional problem arises when the state attempts to regulate access in a way that necessarily sweeps in adults, burdening their First Amendment rights both to speak and to receive speech," Bergmeier wrote. In such circumstances, the court has consistently applied strict scrutiny and has struck down laws that are too broad, too vague, or that fail to explore less restrictive alternatives.

For example, in Sable Communications versus FCC in 1989, the court struck down a federal ban on dial-up horn telephone messages that were indecent but not obscene. The court applied strict scrutiny because the law burdened adult access to protected speech. In Reno versus ACLU in 1997, the court invalidated key provisions

of the Communications Decency Act that banned indecent and patently offensive material online because of the effects on the speech of adults, Bergmeier said. Rather than applying strict scrutiny in line with precedent, the court applied intermediate scrutiny. This shift in analysis is both new and troubling. The court does not treat the law as a content-based regulation of protected adult speech. Instead, it frames the law as a permissible enforcement tool aimed at unprotected material.

In the nation, Ellie Mistol suggested Democrats should become the pro-porn party. Democrats can speak to people who honestly believe that freedom of thought and expression are under attack in this country because it is under attack from Republicans. You might not be able to convince the Cishetero white guy that free Palestine flags are germane to his free speech concerns, but you might convince him that porn is, Ms. Dahl wrote. That's because pornography is an actual free speech issue. So is smut. So is obscenity.

These are forms of free speech that conservatives and Republicans in the government are constantly trying to regulate. These are forms of free speech that conservatives and Republicans in the government are constantly trying to regulate. Liberals are the people who are supposed to be at the vanguard of free expression when it comes to sexy time. Democrats should be exposing the fundamental Republican hypocrisy of treating Pornhub like a sin, but Donald Trump like a god, and they can do that by loudly and proudly defending people's rights to access Pnhub, Mistol said.

These are the actual free speech issues of our time. Let Republicans rail against woke terminology with their mouths while trying to ban Grand Theft Auto with their legislation. Democrats can outflank them by actually defending free speech from prudish Republican overreach. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. That is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So it's Supreme Court season. And by now, I think most of you have learned that I like to evaluate these rulings in two parts on the legal merits of the argument and on the practical outcome. And by now, I think most of you have learned that I like to evaluate these rulings in two parts.

On the legal merits of the argument and on the practical outcome. Today, though, I want to do something a little different, and I want to start with the practical outcome first. Longtime readers will probably be unsurprised to read that I'm genuinely happy about this outcome. In 2023, we produced an entire YouTube video about a similar age verification bill in Utah, and last year I wrote a deep dive on the dangers of pornography, interviewing experts, advocates, and adult film stars on both sides of the debate. My extensive research for these pieces convinced me how dangerous the situation has become and how necessary it is to act.

Long story short, the pornography of 2025 is not like stealing a playboy from your dad's closet a few decades ago. It's limitless, addictive, and increasingly extreme and it's easy for kids to access. At the most basic level, I think the state has an interest in limiting the distribution of pornography. Society in general and kids in particular would be much better off if accessing it were a little less easy and I think Texas is well within its rights to require an age verification system. This law strikes me as the digital version of a liquor store owner requiring ID so teenagers can't buy alcohol.

Still, I do have reservations about age verification as a system to keep kids away from this content. A couple of the experts I spoke to last year expressed support for these laws because they could truly impact children's ability to access pornography websites. But as I expressed in our 2023 video, I'm concerned those impacts come at the expense of violating adults' rights to privacy.

It isn't hard to imagine a world where adults who have entered personally identifying information to verify their age have their data and browsing history hacked. to imagine a world where adults who have entered personally identifying information to verify their age have their data and browsing history hacked. Or alternatively, teenagers could steal their parents' ID. It's been known to happen, use them to sign up for pornographic websites,

and then that data leaks, making someone who may not have even used an illicit website vulnerable to the same risks. To that end, I wonder how much impact laws like this will really have. Texas's law only applies to websites where over a third of the content is pornographic, meaning sites like Reddit and Tumblr, where pornographic content is common but not ubiquitous, are exempt. Additionally, pre-authenticated sites that parents use or VPN-connected devices that

spoof out-of-state IP addresses or even a driver's license with an arms reach can allow kids to sidestep requirements that would be much more effective in person. So, upfront, I'm personally glad Texas won this case and that states will be able to legislate to restrict pornography access for minors. I wish there were a perfect system that could both protect kids and preserve

internet anonymity for adults, but age verification is probably the best we've got right now. I'm willing to accept the practical effects of that trade-off, though I understand plenty of reasonable and sincere people are not. Now, for the legal arguments, where I'm much more conflicted. Clay Calvert, under what the right is saying, made a compelling case that the court invented a doctrinal workaround to get the result that they wanted and one that could potentially impact the First Amendment rights down the line.

And the specifics of how age verification is implemented are relevant. While Texas can legally block minors from accessing obscene content, it cannot burden adults and requiring them to surrender anonymity and disclose personally identifiable information could certainly be a burden and thus an infringement on their constitutional rights.

As Calvert explained, the statute in question clearly falls under strict scrutiny because it is content-based, targeting a specific kind of subject matter. Justice Thomas came close to acknowledging this in his majority opinion, but then conjured a new standard instead. Thomas called strict scrutiny ill-suited for such nuanced work and declared the only principled way to give due consideration to both the First Amendment and state's legitimate interests in protecting minors is to employ a less exacting standard.

I don't have a law degree, but that does seem like someone writing new standards and laws into existence on the fly, rather than following the very standard Thomas himself set just a decade ago. Interestingly and importantly, I think the court could have applied strict scrutiny and still reached its desired conclusion. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Kagan conceded that strict scrutiny may not have been fatal to this law, despite how difficult that higher standard is to survive. Nearly every justice on the court seemed compelled

by the basic argument that pornography was bad for kids and that states have a compelling interest to limit it. Had the case been argued under strict scrutiny, Texas would have had to prove that the only way to block minors from accessing adult content was through the law it enacted. Under Thomas's newly invented standard though, the court can determine that the First Amendment only partially protects the speech in question, i.e. for adults but not for minors. And if the burden on adults is only incidental

to blocking minors access, then intermediate scrutiny applies. Again, from Calvert, quote, "'One now must question how far lower courts will stretch the decision and what exemption from strict scrutiny the court will carve out next that makes it easier to restrict controversial expression, end quote. I would have much preferred to see strict scrutiny applied here and then Texas prevail anyway, even if that outcome would have been less likely under that standard.

Instead, the victory for Texas brings with it a whole slew of questions about future First Amendment infringements, along with plenty of reasonable concerns that age verification won't be that limiting for access kids have to porn right now. It's a very rare government action that doesn't come with trade-offs, and I'd call this ruling a win for protecting kids. We'll be right back after this quick break. Next up is your question's answer. This one's from Aaron in Felton, Delaware. Aaron said two part question today.

One is how much should I read into the hype of the left blowing up how badly the right is going to take away our social security, Medicare, Medicaid veterans benefits? Even I being left of center feel like it's overblown most of the time. So my other question is, if a time comes where those benefits are actually in jeopardy,

what does that initial red flag look like and how close are we really to that? So this is a fair question, Erin, and especially in the wake of all the coverage about how Republicans are cutting Medicaid. Simply put, Republicans have already voted to make Medicaid requirements larger and payouts to states smaller, which is more than a red flag. It's actually doing it. President Trump promised not to cut veterans benefits, Social Security, Medicare,

and Medicaid, but now that Congress passed Medicaid cuts, it's fair to wonder if any of those programs are safe moving forward, especially as the executive branch is cutting staffing at Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration. However, and as usual, it's not exactly as simple as just that. As we said last week in passing the one big, beautiful bill, Republicans voted for Medicaid work requirements and changes to the way it funds states operating the program, resulting in the largest cut to Medicaid benefits in history and nearly $1 trillion in benefits over a decade.

However, those cuts are not authorized to take effect until the end of 2026 for some and not till 2028 for most. That means Congress still has time to pass additional legislation that limits or supersedes this one. Additionally, the cuts, which are emphatically significant, may not materialize in the amount of drop coverage that opponents of the bill, like us, are claiming. As Ramesh Ponnaru wrote in the Washington Post, the Congressional Budget Office, while quite good at predicting fiscal and macroeconomic

impacts, has a pretty poor track record of estimating Medicaid coverage impacts. On that note, part of Congress's cuts relate to Medicaid funding mechanisms and not directly to coverage. The bill limits states' use of provider taxes, a tactic states use to receive additional funding from the federal government, and one that Joe Biden, as vice president, called a scam. That's not to say Republicans' Medicaid cuts will have a small impact on Americans.

It's just to say the cuts may not actually materialize in the manner in which they were approved, and that there will still be a difference between the dollar amount cut and the services that will eventually be lost, though, of course, that difference could be larger, not smaller. The bottom line, Medicaid cuts are already underway, which is also a red flag that cuts to other benefits could be coming.

All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the podcast and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your Under the Radar story for today, folks. On Monday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that it has ended its emergency response to the H5N1 bird flu, as fewer animals have been infected with the

H5N1 strain and no human cases have been reported since February. While 70 human cases of bird flu were reported to the CDC in total, no human-to-human exposures and only one human fatality have been reported in the U.S. since the CDC H5N1 bird flu response began last April. The agency said it will continue to monitor the virus and issue monthly updates. Axios has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright next up is our numbers section. The percentage of teens aged 17 and younger who said they had consumed pornography is 73% according to a 2022 Common Sense report.

The percentage of teens who reported they first saw online pornography when they were 13 or younger was 54%. The average age at which teens in the survey said they had first seen pornography was 12 years old. The percentage of teens who said they had encountered pornography accidentally was 58%. The number of states with age verification laws that took effect in 2023 was six states.

The number of states with age verification laws that took effect in 2024 was nine states. The number of states with age verification laws that have taken effect or are set to take effect in 2025 is nine states. And the number of Americans living in states with age verification laws in effect at the end of 2024 is 139 million people.

And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Andrew Roth was a prisoner at the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany when Jack Moran arrived with the U.S. military to liberate the camp in April 1945. Roth survived Buchenwald, Auschwitz and an Eastern European ghetto during the Holocaust, while Moran made it through brutal fighting in Europe, including the Battle of the Bulge. Now both nearing 100 years old, the two recently met again in Los Angeles at the University of Southern California Shoah Foundation, eight decades after their first meeting. I was so much younger, so were you, Roth said when they met. How wonderful that you survived, Moran said. NPR has this story and the pictures, and there's a link in today's episode description.

All right, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundle membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Law. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kavak and associate editors Hunter Kaspersson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Sall, Lindsay Knuth, and Kendall White.

Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com.