Pornography industry is profiting off innocent children

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

On Jan. 15, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the court’s first big case on the regulation of pornography since 2004. In this case, the court will determine whether states can enact laws requiring pornographic websites to use effective age verification to protect children from harmful and inappropriate content.

As attorneys, we believe that the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Texas and the other 18 states that have already passed similar protections for children. As women, we believe that our daughters, nieces and all young girls deserve to grow up without inadvertently being exposed to the perverted “wild west” of unregulated internet pornography. In our amicus brief to the Supreme Court in this case, we lay out substantial scientific and legal arguments to support this claim, which we are honored to present to readers of the Minnesota Star Tribune here.

This is a landmark case with enormous potential impact, as the Supreme Court has only heard a handful of cases on this topic since 1997, when most American children did not even have independent access to the internet and inventions like high-definition streaming video and the iPhone were still years away. In the 1997 decision striking down the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in Reno v. ACLU, the court reasoned that children did not stumble on internet pornography because it was not as accessible as the radio or television. Since pornography is now more accessible than ever before, anytime and anywhere, this argument is simply no longer tenable, and many states have decided that age-gating laws are a reasonable way to reverse course on this crisis.

In 2004, the court struck down Congress’ next attempt to protect children via the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) in Ashcroft v. ACLU. The court suggested that instead of government action, filters could be used by end users to block pornography. While filters can be helpful, they place the burden of keeping harmful content away from children fully on parents and caregivers, rather than on the industry that profits from this content. The experiment with putting this burden solely on parents has been unsuccessful: A 2022 survey of American teens ages 13 to 17 found that nearly three quarters (73%) reported being exposed to pornography before 18 years old.

Even the most dedicated parents struggle to protect their children from the harmful content that “Big Porn” companies have spread across the internet, and children who are mentally and emotionally unequipped to handle explicit and often violent images are stumbling on pornography by accident every day.

Not only has accessibility to pornography increased because of technological advancements since 2004, we now know more about the harms that pornography has on developing minds. Legislators across the country have heard compelling testimony regarding the aftermath of this exposure, including horror stories from innocent children and their parents who are victims of unfettered access to online pornography, as well as from a range of experts who testified about the unique harms children experience from exposure to pornography, and the benefits of laws using age verification technology to protect children.

There is growing scientific consensus that early exposure to pornography leads to a higher likelihood of child-on-child sex abuse, lower self-esteem and body image concerns, problems forming healthy relationships later in life, sexual dysfunction and mental health concerns. During one committee hearing, Texas lawmakers heard testimony from a mother who shared her own heartbreaking story about her 10-year-old daughter who became addicted to pornography. The addiction was so gripping that by the time her daughter was 15 her biggest dream was to become an adult film star. She testified that despite her best efforts as a mom, she was unable to protect her child against the porn industry. These technology giants were doing nothing to protect her child. Rather, wide access to pornography pushed her daughter into self-isolating behaviors, limiting her ability to dream about any other career or possibilities for her future. These experiences represent a mere fraction of parents, teens and children across the entire country who are victims of the online pornography industry’s aggressive assault on young minds, which is not limited by physical or geographic boundaries.

The court has an opportunity to bring about positive change in 2025. Technology has not only changed the accessibility of pornography, it has also made it possible to effectively regulate it. Technological advancements mean that a person no longer has to input a credit card or a driver’s license for their age to be verified. There are a multitude of available methods, some of which are 99% effective and do not require any personal data to be stored outside the user’s phone.

Even if the court does not take into account all the dizzying number of studies and data presented to it, when children’s health and welfare are at stake, the court should defer to the judgment of state legislators. Interested readers can read our full amicus brief at truenorthlegal.org to see this argument developed in full.

Legislators and activists here in Minnesota will be closely watching this case. It is long past time that the court reassessed conclusions made at the birth of the internet more than two decades ago and take stock of the dire effects that an unregulated commercial pornographic industry has had on our society and on those who are most uniquely vulnerable to harms from pornographic content — our children. Laws like this have passed with bipartisan support in every state in which they have become law and been signed by both Republican and Democratic governors. In Minnesota, a state that invests massive amounts of money into health care and education for children, it’s time for us to join other Midwestern states like Kansas and Indiana and invest in making the internet a safe space for our youngest residents.

Renee Carlson serves as general counsel of True North Legal (truenorthlegal.org), an initiative of Minnesota Family Council. Brittany M. Jones serves as general counsel of Kansas Family Foundation.