{"id":48282,"date":"2025-06-30T15:02:29","date_gmt":"2025-06-30T19:02:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=48282"},"modified":"2025-10-08T19:33:13","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T23:33:13","slug":"free-speech-coalition-v-paxton","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2025\/06\/30\/free-speech-coalition-v-paxton\/","title":{"rendered":"Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton"},"content":{"rendered":"

Adi Robertson<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Age verification is perhaps the hottest battleground for online speech, and the Supreme Court just settled<\/a> a pivotal question: does using it to gate adult content violate the First Amendment in the US? For roughly the past 20 years<\/a> the answer has been “yes” — now, as of Friday, it’s an unambiguous “no.”<\/p>

Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion<\/a> in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton<\/em> is relatively straightforward as Supreme Court rulings go. <\/p>

[…]<\/p>

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<\/a>. 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n