SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A Utah statute mandating adult websites to authenticate the age of their users will continue to be upheld following the dismissal of a legal challenge to its constitutionality by an industry association.
The court’s decision represents a setback for proponents of digital privacy and the Free Speech Coalition. The coalition had filed a lawsuit on behalf of adult performers, writers of erotic content, sex educators, and casual consumers of explicit material, contesting the constitutionality of the Utah law, as well as a similar law in Louisiana. These laws aim to restrict access to content deemed lewd or explicit.
U.S. District Court Judge Ted Stewart did not engage with the group’s contentions that the law unfairly discriminates against specific forms of expression, infringes upon the First Amendment rights of adult content providers, or encroaches on the privacy of individuals seeking to access sexually explicit materials.
On Tuesday, the lawsuit was rejected by Judge Ted Stewart, who asserted that the plaintiffs were not eligible to file a lawsuit against Utah officials due to the specific enforcement approach outlined in the law. The legislation does not compel the state to actively pursue or bring legal action against adult websites. Rather, it empowers Utah residents to initiate legal proceedings and seek compensation if these websites fail to implement adequate measures for verifying the ages of their users.
“They cannot simply obtain a pre-enforcement injunction,” Judge Stewart stated in his dismissal, referencing a 2021 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld a Texas law allowing private individuals to sue abortion providers.
This legislation represents the most recent endeavor by Utah’s Republican-dominated Legislature to address the issue of pornography. Since 2016, they have enacted laws aimed at countering what they view as the detrimental effects of pornography on children’s public and mental well-being.
In enacting these new age verification stipulations, Utah lawmakers contended that the widespread and easily accessible nature of online pornography posed a potential danger to children during their crucial developmental stages when they are beginning to learn about sexuality.
The law itself does not outline specific methods for adult websites to authenticate users’ ages. Certain websites, like Pornhub, have chosen to block access to their content in Utah. Others have experimented with third-party age verification services, such as utilizing facial recognition technology like Yoti, which employs webcams to analyze facial characteristics and estimate ages.
Critics contend that age verification regulations targeting adult websites not only impinge upon freedom of speech but also pose a threat to online privacy due to the potential retention of user identification data. In response to the dismissal of the lawsuit, the Free Speech Coalition, which is concurrently challenging a comparable law in Louisiana, declared its intention to appeal the decision.
Alison Boden, the executive director of the coalition, argued, “States are attempting to do an end run around the First Amendment by outsourcing censorship to citizens. It’s a new mechanism, but a deeply flawed one. Government attempts to chill speech, no matter the method, are prohibited by the Constitution and decades of legal precedent.”
State Senator Todd Weiler, the Republican sponsor of the age verification law, expressed little surprise at the lawsuit’s dismissal. He indicated that Utah, whether through its executive branch or legislative body, is likely to further develop its digital identification initiatives to facilitate compliance with age verification prerequisites for both adult websites and social media platforms.
Notably, Utah had previously passed a pioneering law in March, mandating age verification for individuals wishing to use social media within the state.
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, one of the officials mentioned in the lawsuit, commended Judge Stewart’s ruling and characterized age verification requirements as “reasonable safeguards for our children.” He emphasized, “The innocence and safety of our children are paramount and worth protecting ardently.”