• We The 66
  • Posts
  • 🌊 How a Court Case Could Redraw the Internet

🌊 How a Court Case Could Redraw the Internet

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton has major implications for how internet content is regulated

Ken Paxton

Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!

By Max Frost

Porn may never be the same. The reason is a Supreme Court case whose decision is due in the coming weeks.  

The case – Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton – asks whether the state of Texas can require pornography websites to verify that visitors are 18 or older before they can enter. At stake is not just a Texas law, but a nationwide movement: Since 2022, nearly two dozen US states have passed laws with similar mandates, ushering in what some are calling the biggest shift in internet access since the invention of online filters.

Supporters of the law say it’s about protecting kids. Opponents say it’s the government’s biggest move against adult speech in decades. And both agree: The implications go far beyond porn.

Texas’ law, known as House Bill 1181, requires age verification on websites where “more than one-third” of the content is “harmful to minors.” In practice, this has meant age verification for porn users. No ID, no entry.

On paper, the law seemed simple. In practice, it set off a firestorm.

A day before it was to take effect in 2023, a federal judge blocked it, arguing that the law likely violated the First Amendment by limiting adults’ access to legal speech and forcing them to reveal their identity to access it. He pointed to earlier Supreme Court rulings that rejected federal age verification laws as unconstitutional and said that less restrictive alternatives (like parental filters) were available.

But the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, upholding the age verification requirement and triggering a showdown at the Supreme Court. That’s where the Free Speech Coalition – a trade group representing the porn industry – argued that adults have a right to access legal content anonymously and that Texas’ law would chill free expression.

The case has put porn on the center of the Supreme Court’s docket. In today’s deep-dive, we look at the arguments and implications of the case. 

The rest of this report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!

Editor’s Note

Nothing like some porn to start your Thursday morning. What does this sound like to you: Sensible policy or an attack on liberty? Let us know by replying to this email

Below are our past 5 stories if you’re interested in reading more:

We got dozens of emails in response to yesterday’s story on RFK Jr. and The MAHA Report. Thanks to all who wrote in. We’re sharing a number of your responses below.

Kyla wrote:

The MAHA movement is my most passionate agenda of this administration. Over the last 4-5 years I’ve gone from making about 20-30% of our food to about 95% from scratch, and I’m still learning. I appreciate in the report it mentions FOLATE not folic acid (the synthetic version). We’re learning so much about neurodivergence and methylation and how chemicals like folic acid and cyanocobalamin (synthetic b12) are disrupting our brain chemistries. I’m pleased with it and I’m happy they are focusing on children not adults. Building a new standard is easier than trying to convince a grown adult their diet is trash. It’s a lofty goal to be sure, but at least bringing attention to our shitty food supply and  introducing some legislation will reel it in. Substantial pushback can be expected. Most of these companies are so wealthy because they use cheaper/less nutritionally viable ingredients and they’ve perfected extended shelf lives. But overall I’m excited about this, I truly hope more people really begin to understand how deep the greed in the food industry is and lend some support. 

Hayden wrote:

Having spent time in research, there’s very much a piece of being able to push research “results” to the outcomes you’re looking for. For this reason, I have a very hard time trusting tests and studies about health at face value… especially when they’re conducted by biased sources.

Most everyone I talk to, myself included, talks about how much better they feel when they travel to Europe… fresher foods, less preservatives and chemicals, no headaches, better sleep, no stomach pain or problems… I’m not a food scientist but there’s clearly a difference in health and food quality between the two continents.

I think there is plenty of room to debate some the other vax and medicine topics, but I find it hard to see any arguments against massive food reform in the US.

Jared wrote:

I generally agree with the statements that have been made by RFK Jr. and this administration about the current state of health for everyone in the country. The issue for me, however, is that it seems his team is focusing on the wrong things. I understand that it’s probably important to address issues like red-40 and fluoride, but those seem to be bandaids on bullet holes at this point. I feel like there’s much more potential for helping people by providing them information on proper exercise and diet. There is so much scientific evidence that those two things alone can curb a huge chunk of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases for a majority of people. It also starts to get weird when you set the precedent of government stepping in to ban things for “the good of the greater health”. For those that support that, imagine the precedent set for a future administration that thinks differently than you and may look to ban something like red meat for “the good of the greater health” and/or “the environment.” Just be careful what you ask government to do for you is all I’m saying. It’s better to focus on providing information and letting people decide on their own, or providing incentives like discounted health care, etc. rather than passing mandates.

Janine from New Jersey wrote:

I agree that the food system need to be looked at and I think the focus on “processed food “ largely ignores many other factors related to childhood diseases as well as adult health and wellness. Stress levels , adequate sleep ,access to clean water and preventative healthcare are all also factors in childhood disease. We can not attack one part of the risk factors without a plan to also attack the others. We can’t cut funding to healthcare,  the education system and SNAP benefits and think that just taking out food dyes will solve the issue. It’s more complex than that.

And Maggie from NY wrote:

I consider myself VERY far left and RFK Jr VERY insane, but a broken clock is still right twice a day, and he's on the money about processed foods. Like absolutely everything else today the topic of obesity has become a polarized, identity-politics issue - you're either right and think all fat people are disgusting and to be blamed for poor decision making, or you're left and fat is objectively beautiful and solely the fault of corporations feeding us filler and plastic. It's refreshing to see someone on the right take corporations to task for the insane things they put in our food, and the FDA for allowing that to happen. As a nation we need a better foundation upon which to make health decisions - it's impossible to live well when the meat you buy is 40% filler. That being said, I do think the anti-vaccine stance is beyond dangerous and will absolutely get people killed. He's right, kids should be eating more fruits and veggies instead of Happy Meals, but those fruits and veggies can't cure polio no matter how many vitamins they provide.

We loved reading everyone’s responses. Keep them coming. See you tomorrow.

–Max and Max