More States Get Dumb, Introduce Laws Requiring ID Verification To Access Porn

from the please-apply-for-your-access-to-porn-license dept

There’s no reason anyone should look to Louisiana for legislative leadership. The state still has an oft-abused criminal defamation law on the books in 2023 — the sort of law that would have looked out of place a century ago.

I guess you can be on the cutting edge when your legislative moves appeal to backwards people. A new wave of moral panic is upon us, led by legislators who think they can cleanse the world by cleaning up the internet. Since the internet remains out of reach, a moral minority clad in legislative clothing has arisen, determined to limit everyone’s access to pornography by forcing sites to collect identifying information from site visitors.

The Louisiana law that took effect at the beginning of this year mandated ID verification by any site hosting “at least 33.3% pornography.” How this percentage would be determined was a problem left to the governed to sort out. The implementation of the law resulted in some compliance, with PornHub demanding info from visitors with Louisiana IP addresses. Other sites simply refused access. One-third-or-greater porn sites were steered towards using the state’s in-house ID verification app — LA Wallet — to verify users’ ages.

Copycat legislation is now popping up elsewhere in the country, as Ashley Belanger reports for Ars Technica.

Last month, Louisiana became the first state to require an ID from residents to access pornography online. Since then, seven states have rushed to follow in Louisiana’s footsteps. According to a tracker from Free Speech CoalitionFloridaKansasSouth Dakota, and West Virginia introduced similar laws, and laws in ArkansasMississippi, and Virginia are seemingly closest to passing. If passed, some of these laws could be enforced promptly, while some bills in states like Florida and Mississippi specify that they wouldn’t take effect until July.

Not great news for internet freedom. And, despite what legislators might say in support of these bills, these are designed to limit everyone’s access to pornography. The proposals may state concern for minors accessing sexual material, but the intent is to add friction to porn access with a nasty undercurrent of passive government surveillance running just below the surface.

Legislators may claim they have no access to identifying info gathered by porn sites, but claims like these are only as trustworthy as the people making them. Most people distrust lawmakers. Hence, most people will believe governments will know they’re accessing porn content, whether or not that’s actually the case.

Despite there being plenty of legislators deeply invested in passing performative laws, not every one of these legislative pitches will survive the less-than-close scrutiny of other representatives and other components of the legislative machinery. Belanger reports the South Dakota effort is currently stalled. And the law’s lead backer has offered up an absolutely hilarious explanation of her failure to shove this past a deeply conservative state legislature.

Republican Jessica Castleberry, seemingly failed to persuade the committee of the urgency of passing the law, saying at the hearing that “this is not your daddy’s Playboy. Extreme, degrading, and violent pornography is only one click away from our children.” She told Ars that the bill was not passed because some state lawmakers were too “easily swayed by powerful lobbyists.”

“It’s a travesty that unfettered access to pornography by minors online will continue in South Dakota because of lobbyists protecting the interests of their clients, versus legislators who should be protecting our children,” Castleberry told Ars. “The time to pass this bill was in the mid-1990s.”

There has never been a less likely to exist lobbying group than Big Porn. Castleberry appears to believe her fellow legislators were talked out of passing the bill by shadowy, suited men bearing black bags full of barely used Hustler back issues and handfuls of suspiciously sticky currency.

Equally as stupid as this scenario is the loaded language used by supporters of these laws. Some of this loaded language actually makes its way into the bills’ wording, resulting in dry legislative boilerplate occasionally punctuated by terms like “health crisis” or a peculiar insistence on referring to any and all sexual content (whether artistic or educational or of public interest) as “harmful content.”

This childish thinking isn’t actually going to protect any children. Limiting minors’ access to porn is a good idea, but the government isn’t the entity that’s most likely to succeed without causing a shit ton of collateral damage.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “More States Get Dumb, Introduce Laws Requiring ID Verification To Access Porn”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
53 Comments
egftechman (profile) says:

Re: Exactly

What is the definition of porn. I remember one local school district where the students were blocked out of the official anatomy curriculum online textbook at school because their filters determined it to be inappropriate. (scarier that since the school district of about 2500 students had no tech people on staff and outsourced everything, it took weeks to resolve that)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

Also a question – what’s an ID? Unless I’ve been misled, there’s no national ID in the US, and not everyone has access to any specific type of ID. Credit cards and the like are easily used by minors if they’re crafty enough (and teens tend to be crafty when they’re going for porn), so even if porn is defined, what’s the ID?

Charles Ernest Grassley says:

Well dang...

Double Dang!

I was able to get pics of that sweet snizz in the 40’s, but I’m not really looking forward to having to find stag films for my projector again.

Gonna have to do something, I mean think of the children, all we are training them to do is perpetrate identity theft, probbly of their parents to start with.

This is going to be a real kerfuffle.

I guess it is good polaroid film is available again, gonna have to get out that Big Swinger 3000…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I can. Jingoist authoritarian conservativism in which religion and violence are used to control others through force and fear, in which minorities are persecuted to unite followers against a common enemy who is blamed for all societal evils, truth is a victim to the usefulness of the current dominant narrative, and leaders are assigned heroic mythological status.

So basically, the Republican Party.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

It’s a travesty that unfettered access to pornography by minors online will continue

Wait, I’m a tiny bit confused. I think it’s great if we’re looking to (legal, constitution and ethical) ways to limit children, especially the very young from stumbling upon porn, or finding it when they are just curious about sex. But if they are actually looking for porn… then they already know what they are looking for and the “damage” (however much you believe there is of it) has mostly already been done.

I doubt there’s too big of an issue with “children” (this is probably mostly going to be mid to late teens) looking for porn. Children getting a warped view of sexuality IS a concern… but porn isn’t the only way to do that. And while I don’t have any studies handy I would imagine children are more likely to get distorted or unhealthy views of sex from other places, like their parents, or extended family.

Anyhow to reiterate: I don’t think children should be getting sex-ed from internet porn sites, and if that’s actually a problem… well lets find a reasonable thing to do about it. But living in fear of porn in general seems…. crazy.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I don’t think children should be getting sex-ed from internet porn sites…

Well, if the schools aren’t teaching it (because prudes)…
And the parents aren’t teaching it (because…) …

… the remaining options vary from bad to worse.

I suppose there’s always the way pa learned. I remember his commentary comparing the back seats of various cars, back in the day.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: If you don't teach them someone else will

Whether prudish parents or adults like it or not eventually kids will learn about sex, the only questions are ‘From who?’, ‘How accurate is the information?’ and ‘What price did they pay to learn?’, so unless they want kids to find out via the ‘Whoops, I’m pregnant/got someone pregnant/picked up an STD, how’d that happen?’ way it’s in everyone’s best interest to ensure accurate and comprehensive education is provided by a trustworthy source no matter how much the thought of sex and/or naked bodies might make the parents/adults squirm.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

ways to limit children, especially the very young from stumbling upon porn, or finding it when they are just curious about sex

There’s always been a way that works – content filtering has been around for years. But parents can’t be bothered to learn how to keep their children safe. That’s supposed to be everyone else’s job, apparently.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I think it’s great if we’re looking to … limit children, especially the very young from stumbling upon porn

Why’s that “great”? Tolerable, maybe, but is there any reason to think stumbling across porn is worse for them than, say, stumbling across spam sites, or news stories about the national budget deficit? As far as I know, the worst that’s ever happened is that some parents had conversations that the parents found awkward. Kids that are too young aren’t gonna have much interest, and will move on.

In my experience, it’s pretty rare to “stumble across” porn. Maybe it’ll happen to a kid interested in watersports. But by the same logic, a kid interested in trees probably doesn’t want to read about b-tree indexing in databases. Making search engines have some sense of context like this is useful. Anything porn-specific, though, is in my view wasted human effort, and is actively harmful (if just slightly) in that it promotes prudism.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

“But if they are actually looking for porn… then they already know what they are looking for and the “damage” (however much you believe there is of it) has mostly already been done.”

The people up in arms about this usually think their kids are innocent angels who will stay that way forever and would never think about such things. This is why states that push “abstinence only” have more problems with teen pregnancies, etc. – that works until it doesn’t, then when it fails the kids are open to all sorts of problems that could have been warned about.

“Anyhow to reiterate: I don’t think children should be getting sex-ed from internet porn sites, and if that’s actually a problem… well lets find a reasonable thing to do about it.”

Kids only getting sex ed from porn is definitely a problem as they’re not equipped to tell the difference between “normal” relationships and weird fetish stuff, and so on. But that’s not porn’s fault, it’s a problem with a culture that pretends that sex is taboo while violence is natural. They shouldn’t have deep education into niche stuff, but they should at least be aware of how contraceptives work and if they only get that info from porn they might miss a few important steps.

Anyway, the problem is that some kids don’t know about sex until their bodies tell them about it, and if they don’t get education elsewhere then they stand to make mistakes and/or be told the wrong thing. Blocking porn won’t help with the latter.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Usually, they’re lobbied by anti-porn activists. These activists brand anything with an element of “aggression”, such as spanking or roleplay, as “violence”.

Ironically, it’s the anti-porn activists who are doing exactly what they accuse “Big Porn” of doing here. Walking in with wads of cash and making dubious claims on behalf of evangelicals.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'I'm terrified of the naked body so you should be too!'

I’m sure it’s a complete coincidence for those pushing anti-porn/explicit content bills that mandatory ID checks for porn access would create the world’s most tempting source of blackmail material, making adults more hesitant to look for it in addition to presenting a minor speedbump for teens to do the same…

Republican Jessica Castleberry, seemingly failed to persuade the committee of the urgency of passing the law, saying at the hearing that “this is not your daddy’s Playboy. Extreme, degrading, and violent pornography is only one click away from our children.” She told Ars that the bill was not passed because some state lawmakers were too “easily swayed by powerful lobbyists.”

Yes, I’m sure the heavy lobbying by Big Dick is the reason they passed on her attempt to legislate her idea of morality and shunt the responsibility to (try in vain) keep porn away from teenagers to the platforms and away from the gorram parents of the kids in question, there’s just no other possible explanation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The YouTube algorithm is not to be understated, especially the pipeline that is children’s content on there. It’s been going on for almost a decade now.

“Well your generation grew up with television”, many would say. To which I say, go look up a Minecraft, Roblox, or Peeps Pig video. Turn the volume down or off, let Autoplay run for a few hours, and see where you wind up. It’s seedy, often AI generated, and unlike my childhood cartoons, was vetted by someone before it was showed to millions of children.

Porn in the hands of kids is something I don’t like there’s an elephant in the room that I think is more important… kids these days get their first internet devices before they’re even potty trained. Parents need to be educated instead.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“unlike my childhood cartoons, was vetted by someone before it was showed to millions of children”

I’m… going to assume there’s a “not” you missed out there.

But, what you just said is an argument against parents not passing their kids off to YouTube, not an argument against YouTube themselves. It also has nothing to do with porn, unless you have something you really need to report to YouTube for their kid-specific channels.

egftechman (profile) says:

Will wikimedia commons require ID?

search favorite porn terms in wikimediacommons and one can find quite a bit..

How about ‘lingerie’ pictures in etsy?

Do state laws apply to sites hosted outside the state?

A good way to kids to learn how to tunnel their traffic through ssh, VPNs, and learn all about proxy server settings…I remember always on the lookout for open proxy servers back in the 1990s so I could get around a corporate firewall and traffic logging, and also using a shell account included in my home isp service to do ssh tunnels to my ISP to get around filters…nothing preventing kids today from using multiple free DigitalOcean trials and AWS free tiers and doing the same without spending a dime.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

What these states need is good sex education.

The sorts of people who’re for censorship are usually for sex education that consists of abstinence, which ironically is linked to higher levels of teen pregnancy and sex.

Ironically, these kinds of bills would likely censor useful educational content, and create an actual problem (which they could then point to as a reason to double down even harder).

It’s not really the porn, although you can have your opinion on whether they should be viewing it. If we think about it, both of these things have plummeted in recent years.

Nor do I think anyone wants them viewing it, although how do you do that without infringing on the rights of everyone else. For younger ones, parental controls might make sense.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

What these states need is good sex education.

Yeah, but not from anyone in Louisiana. They have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the country. I’d say with that dubious honor, they really suck at teaching about sex in the context of being responsible.

Those kids might be better off with some random website if this is what they’re getting from their elders.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

But they need to keep a high population of underage kids to clean the meat processing line, their little hands can clean between the blades without having to take them apart for cleaning like the manual says.
Its just a few fingers, we’ll blame it on fireworks…
Besides as that AK rep recently said that dead kids are a financial boon to the state because they won’t need state services.

discussitlive (profile) says:

Re: Re:

(O)riginal (E)quipment (M)anufacturer, EG: The Creator or evolution if preferred.

Sorry, my family is chock full of either lawyers, teachers, or engineers, and only the engineers get my humor. The others used to insist I use the full name before the acronym, but sadly, age and “it’s just him – ignore him.” have set in. And I’m pretty much the last of the Mohicans as far as the engineers go.

John85851 (profile) says:

Here's a proposal

Here’s a proposal for protecting the children: how about a law that says sites with over 33% gun content must require an ID?
I think mass shootings in schools is a much, much bigger problem than someone seeing porn.

I think there’s plenty of proof showing how white males are becoming radicalized by the display of guns and firepower, and how they too can become a man with the right gun.

Yet I haven’t seen one story about a “mass porn event” where some kid shows hardcore videos to his class and causes a mass evacuation of the school.

But guns have a huge lobbying industry, especially the NRA, but the porn industry doesn’t, so they’re an easy target for a moral panic.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...