Available in Audio Format:

Kids in Canada can easily access internet pornography – often without even meaning to.  

Bill S-209, currently being considered in Canada’s Senate, would mandate meaningful age-verification mechanisms for access to pornographic sites. Other jurisdictions have already enacted such laws, which are proving effective.  

The first US state to pass an age-verification law was Louisiana, followed by nearly two dozen others. Among those was Texas, which just won a legal battle at the US Supreme Court to uphold its law. The Court, in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, found that Texas’ age-verification law does not violate free speech. 

Legal Challenge 

The Free Speech Coalition challenged Texas’ law, arguing that it violates free speech. Generally, pornography is considered protected speech provided it is not obscene, which is a high bar. The first court to review the Texas law struck is down, reasoning that Texas should have pursued a “less restrictive means” to prevent children from viewing porn, such as encouraging parents to install content filters. Texas appealed, and the higher court upheld the law as a valid means of pursuing the state’s interest in protecting children.   

In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court also ruled in Texas’ favour, noting that the purpose of the law (to prevent children from viewing porn) is pressing, and that it does not burden the speech of adults more than necessary.  

Although US courts are cautious about violating free speech, there are types of speech that are not protected by the constitution, including obscenity, defamation, and fraud. But because a lot of pornography would not be considered obscenity, it would generally be considered protected speech. However, pornography that is not considered obscene per se may also be obscene for minors, the Court reasoned. The Court also noted that minors can now access both benign and extreme content with an ease that would have been unimaginable when previous court decisions addressed the question of protecting minors from porn. In 2024, 95% of American teens had access to a smartphone, and 93% used smartphones several times per day. Justice Thomas emphasized the sheer quantity and ease of access to internet porn, noting that in 2019, Pornhub published 1.36 million hours (150 years) of content. 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court clearly stated that adults have no constitutional right to avoid age-verification, even if adults have a constitutional right to view pornography. Texas’ law is not a ban on pornographic content, but simply a requirement to ensure all viewers are over 18. Age-verification has been used for many years for in-person age-restricted activities, including registering a handgun, voting, getting married, or purchasing a pornographic magazine. These requirements have never been disputed. Age-verification is also already used for online gambling, alcohol and tobacco sales, and renting a car. It is also used by some porn websites, by choice. The specific methods of age-verification required by the Texas law are government-issued ID and transactional data, and both were deemed valid methods by the Court.  

Privacy concerns are also commonly raised by opponents of age-verification. They worry about the stigma of pornography use and the potential for data breaches and loss of privacy. The Court addressed these concerns only briefly, but noted that porn companies and third-party age-verification companies have every incentive to protect privacy. After all, they are trying to promote their companies, and users can avoid their sites if they are not protecting privacy. Additionally, the Court noted that social stigma is no reason to exempt porn companies from valid regulation.  

Three Takeaways 

The United States is possibly the most ardent defender of free speech in the world. Yet their highest court also recognizes that laws protecting children are critical even if they hinder adults’ freedom to some degree. If Canada passes Bill S-209 or other age-verification requirements, our law will likely be challenged as well, for similar reasons. The US Supreme Court’s Paxton ruling explains why such constitutional challenges should fail.  

We must protect children from porn and hold companies accountable for who they allow on their websites. As for privacy concerns, adults can choose whether to upload whatever information is necessary to verify their age, and decide which sites to trust. Canadians already use identity-verification methods online for shopping, banking, tax filing, and much more. While laws restricting access to pornography could go much further, age-verification is a good place to start. It aims to protect children from easily accessing pornography from anywhere and holds pornography companies accountable if they fail to use meaningful age-verification methods.  

Age-verification may make viewing pornography slightly more difficult for adults. Let’s hope that many adults will choose to forego porn rather than upload age verification, and that overall porn consumption consequently drops. Tellingly, the porn industry hates age verification laws. In response to age-verification laws, Pornhub, one of the largest porn companies in the world, chose to stop operating in certain jurisdictions with such laws rather than implement proper age-verification.  

Conclusion 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Paxton is a key development in the global effort to protect kids from pornography. Online porn is not only much more extreme, but also much easier to obtain and view secretly than it once was. Canadian society must abandon the notion that easy access to porn is a right and instead understand the profound damage it does to our lives and our culture. We are thankful to see good court decisions on this anywhere in the world and we pray that Canada will also pass and successfully defend age-verification legislation.  

As the Canadian Senate considers Bill S-209, take a few minutes to send an Easymail asking them to pass the legislation as quickly as possible.