When Free Speech and Privacy Goes to Court: Texas Age-Verification Digital Law Faces the Justices

As the Supreme Court dons its robes for yet another round of cases this January, it finds itself with a plate loaded with some of the most volatile issues of our times. Somewhere between wading through matters of excessive force, accessibility under the ADA, and financial deception, the justices will take on a battle of cultural, political, and constitutional proportions: the First Amendment fight over Texas’ new age-verification law. At the center is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton — a case that invites the Court to decide if Texas and other states crusade against anonymous internet access is a defense of "the children" or a stealthy attack on free speech dressed up as a public good.

The Texas statute in question is a piece of legislation with a familiar pitch: protecting minors from online "harmful" content, chiefly pornography. But in Texas' playbook, "harmful" is conveniently broad, designed to cover any content the state deems inappropriate for minors. The law, requiring websites to verify a visitor’s age, and so pushes digital ID verification, was enthusiastically upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the law did not infringe upon First Amendment rights, brushing off concerns over adults' access to legal content with a casual confidence that would make a poker player sweat.

In the world of constitutional law, everything comes down to the fine print of judicial review standards. The Fifth Circuit used the "rational basis" review, the most forgiving standard, which essentially allows the state to regulate as long as it has a remotely reasonable argument. It’s the legal equivalent of saying, “I don’t need proof that this makes sense, just that it might make sense.” The Free Speech Coalition, however, isn’t buying it, and they’re calling for "strict scrutiny," a standard that demands the state not only justify its logic but also prove it’s using the least restrictive method possible to achieve its goals. Strict scrutiny, in other words, is the standard the government dreads — it’s the judicial equivalent of setting the hoop on fire and then asking it to jump through blindfolded.

While the Court is still deciding on its standards, advocates for free speech are sounding the alarm. They argue that Texas' law is more about controlling adult speech and less about protecting children. After all, anyone who’s actually spent five minutes on the internet knows that age-verification mechanisms are easily bypassed. The law’s practical effects might be marginal, but its symbolic ones aren’t: handing the government the keys to control access based on vague notions of "harm" doesn't just shut the door on minors; it locks adults out, too, from what remains a legal— and some would argue protected — form of expression.

…