No emergency intervention, but the appeal on the merits is still ongoing.
The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to block a Texas law that seeks to limit minors’ access to pornography on the internet by requiring age verification measures like the submission of government-issued IDs.
As is the court’s custom in rulings on emergency applications, its brief order gave no reasons. There were no noted dissents. A petition seeking review of an appeals court’s ruling upholding the law remains pending.
A trade group, companies that produce sexual materials and a performer challenged the law, saying that it violates the First Amendment right of adults.
The law does not allow companies to retain information their users submit. But the challengers said adults would be wary of supplying personal information for fear of identity theft, tracking and extortion.
[…]
The challengers, represented by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union, told the justices that the Fifth Circuit was not entitled to second-guess the Supreme Court.
“This case presents the rare and noteworthy instance in which a court of appeals has brazenly departed from this court’s precedents because it claims to have a better understanding of the law,” they wrote.
In urging the Supreme Court to leave the law in place while it considers whether to hear an appeal, Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, said pornography available on the internet is “orders of magnitude more graphic, violent and degrading than any so-called ‘girlie’ magazine of yesteryear.”
He added: “This statute does not prohibit the performance, production or even sale of pornography but, more modestly, simply requires the pornography industry that make billions of dollars from peddling smut to take commercially reasonable steps to ensure that those who access the material are adults. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.”
The plaintiffs had also challenged a second part of the law requiring sites to post “public health warnings” about the harmful effects of pornography, saying that the First Amendment bars such compelled speech. Judge Ezra and all three members of the Fifth Circuit panel agreed, and the challenge to that provision is not part of the Supreme Court case.
See here, here, and here for some background. You know where I stand on this, I don’t have anything to add to that. We’ll see if SCOTUS takes up the appeal or just lets the Fifth Circuit overrule it. The Current has more.
Still not writing anything about cops cracking heads at UT and elsewhere to break up pro-Palestine protests? Not even with Stace’s callout of (albeit targeting Republicans) Houston-area political leaders?
Pingback: The problem with Texas’ anti-porn law | Off the Kuff
Gadfly, I get that relatively uninformed college students aren’t happy with Israel’s war plans, but to think UT or Columbia or UCLA holds any sway over a foreign governments actions or that the college is going to modify their foreign ‘holdings’ ’cause some students aren’t happy said foreign governments actions has me questioning just what higher education these kids are getting. They’d be better off demonstrating in DC or in the front lawn of their elected official(s) if they really want to have their voices heard.