Adults have a First Amendment right to look for and access information online, including sexual content.
But House Bill 1053, a bill aimed at limiting minors’ access to online content, would require people to undergo an invasive age verification process before accessing adult content online.
As a parent myself, there are certainly online materials that I don’t want my children to view, but I don’t need a surveillance state rife with unintended consequences to accomplish this goal. Laws that seek to impose age verification systems on sites with adult content might sound reasonable at first, but the devil is in the details.
Under House Bill 1053, adults would be required to upload personal data, such as a photo ID, with companies that claim to verify their age. Efforts to childproof the internet like this not only hurt everyone’s ability to access information, but also pose numerous threats to our online privacy and safety. If this bill passes, every single website with any amount of “material harmful to minors” would require all users to upload their government-issued ID, bank account information, or credit card number to prove their age, and make otherwise suitable content completely off-limits for minors. This is akin to barring minors from an entire library because one shelf contains adult materials.
Unlike in-person ID checks, online age verification exposes every website visitor to privacy and security risks. That means it seriously burdens the rights of adults to read, get information, speak and browse online anonymously. Records of our personal information tied to details of the adult content we watch, sexual questions we have, or interests or identities we’re exploring could make millions of people vulnerable to harassment, blackmail and exploitation.
Because of that, House Bill 1053 would 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 Supreme Court has ruled that states can restrict a minor's access to adult material, but legislators must navigate a delicate balance mandated by the U.S. Constitution. The law cannot inhibit a minor's access while simultaneously burdening an adult's right to access the same material. In a precedent-setting case, Reno v. ACLU, the courts deemed age verification requirements were unconstitutional when a less restrictive alternative exists. For example, the voluntary installation of parental control filters.
In January, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a challenge to a Texas law that, like House Bill 1053, requires people to undergo an age verification process before accessing adult content online. A decision in the case is expected by early summer 2025.
Young people deserve our protection and support, but age-gating the internet is not the answer – especially considering that for the more tech-savvy users, all of these attempts at censorship would fall short anyway.
The only way that a website can determine whether a user is located in a particular state is to use the geolocation data provided by the user’s device. But all you to do to need to get around these censors is a virtual public network, or VPN. Kids can easily circumvent the proposed age verification requirements.
Is there harmful content on the internet for young viewers? Undoubtedly. But not every societal ill requires a solution from the government.
In this case, parents already have the tools they need to keep explicit and harmful content away from kids. Built-in parental controls allow us to set screen time limits, review app permissions (such as our kids’ camera, location and contacts), block apps and approve downloads, block sites and filter content. Despite the numerous tools parents have to keep their kids safe online, fewer than 15% of parents activate these tools.
Rather than infringing on constitutional rights, we should focus on educating parents about these existing solutions. Allowing loosely regulated surveillance of our online activity is dangerous and opens the door for government censorship.
A version of this column also appeared in South Dakota Searchlight.
