US Censorship News

Indiana's Republican governor, Eric Holcomb, has signed into law the state's version of the age/ID verification bills being sponsored around the country by anti-porn religious conservatives.

SB 17 requires age verification for material that Indiana deems harmful to minors. The new law will take effect July 1.

This bill stipulates that any website that displays 'material harmful to minors,' is required to use an age verification method to guarantee only adults are accessing the website, the civil liberties group wrote. If the website fails to do so, the parents of a child harmed by the website's content can sue for damages. And, as passed in the Indiana House, the bill would also allow the Attorney General to sue companies who fail to follow the law.

SB 17 will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on free expression online. The legitimate fear of having personal information exposed may deter adults from accessing legal and consensual adult content, thereby limiting their freedom to explore and express themselves in a private digital space, the ACLU of Indiana concluded.

Indiana is the ninth U.S. state to pass a law mandating age/ID verification for viewing adult content.

Meanwhile in Texas, Pornhub has decided to voluntarily withdraw its content from the state. Texas was one of the earlier states to inflict age/ID verification but its enforcement was delayed by a legal case. That legal case has just been lost so Pornhub has reverted to the self blocking policy implemented in other states with age/ID verification requirements. A judgment on March 8 from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas can enforce a new law requiring age-verification systems on porn websites .

Viewers who attempt to visit Pornhub.com are met with a statement from the site's owners, Aylo Global Entertainment, explaining the block:

you may know, your elected officials in Texas are requiring us to verify your age before allowing you access to our website, the statement reads in part. Not only does this impinge on the rights of adults to access protected speech, it fails strict scrutiny by employing the least effective and yet also most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas' stated purpose of allegedly protecting minors.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Meta plans to automatically restrict teen Instagram and Facebook accounts from content including videos and posts about self-harm, graphic violence and eating disorders. Under 18 accounts, based on the birth date entered during sign-up, will automatically be placed into the most restrictive content settings. Teens under 16 won't be shown sexual content.

Meta stated that these measures, expected to be implemented over the forthcoming weeks, are intended to curate a more age-appropriate experience for young users.

The heightened regulatory attention followed testimony in the U.S. Senate by a former Meta employee, Arturo Bejar, who claimed that the company was aware of the harassment and other harms faced by teens on its platforms but failed to take appropriate action.

An Ohio state law intended to restrict children's social media use by requiring parental permission was slated to go into effect next week but has been stopped by a judge.

U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday to block the law from going into effect for now, after a group representing social media companies filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month.

Ohio's Social Media Parental Notification Act was passed last year and would have made it so parents have to allow children under the age of 16 to use certain social media sites. It would apply to new accounts being created on gaming platforms, message boards and social media companies such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat and requires them to get verifiable parental permission for children under age 16 to create new accounts on the sites.

But a trade group representing Meta (the parent company of Facebook and Instagram), TikTok and other tech companies filed a federal lawsuit in early January claiming that the Ohio law is too broad and is in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.