Obscenity in the Digital Age: The Evolving Legal Landscape of Online Pornography

With the relatively recent invention of the Internet, the regulation of different types of content has developed with it. An example of this is the regulation of online pornography, which has emerged as a contentious legal and constitutional issue in the United States. State legislatures have increasingly sought to restrict access to pornographic websites, often citing a need to protect minors and prevent the psychological and social harms associated with exposure to sexually explicit content. Currently, there are about 18 states that have enacted some form of age limits on online pornography access. However, these measures have faced significant legal challenges on the grounds of going against the First Amendment. A question often raised regards the balance between governmental interests and the constitutional right to privacy and free speech. A recent pending case, Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (2024), provides critical insight into the ways in which the courts are currently grappling with this issue, underscoring the broader constitutional stakes involved.

Pornography Regulation and the First Amendment

In an effort to protect citizens from explicit messages and content, there have been a variety of legal cases limiting and reexamining the scope of work that is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects people from having the government “[abridge] the freedom of speech,” along with the freedom of religion, assembly, press, and the right to petition. Over time, obscenity tests have been developed, along with legal precedent regarding the issue of obscenity. 

Miller v. California (1973) and its Scope

In Miller v. California, a significant clarification on obscenity tests was developed from the previous Memoirs v. Massachusetts and Roth v. U.S. The case involved defendant Marvin Miller, who was convicted with violating Cal. Penal Code § 311.2(a), a misdemeanor statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material, in trial court. Miller had been charged after his distribution of brochures containing illustrations of people engaging in sexual acts. Miller argued that the California statute violated his First Amendment rights and should be made void for vagueness. On appeal, the California statute was upheld, with the Miller test being developed as a result. The Miller test is a three-pronged test to evaluate whether material is obscene and thus not protected by the First Amendment: 

1. Would a reasonable person judge the material as “having/encouraging excessive sexual interest”?

2. Does the material “[depict sexual conduct in an offensive way]”?

3. Does the material “lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”? 

This framework creates a clear distinction between what can and cannot fall under First Amendment protection. In the case of Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the websites at issue do not fall under the scope of obscene material, making its restriction fall under heavy scrutiny for possibly being a step closer to the government’s being able to suppress forms of protected speech. 

Reno v. ACLU (1997) and Obscenity Online

In the Supreme Court case of Reno v. ACLU, the ruling created a precedent regarding the scope of the Fifth Amendment upon digital spaces. The case judged the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act (1996) (CDA), a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that was created in order to criminalize obscene material online, particularly when intentionally transmitted to anyone under the age of 18. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that the criminal elements of the CDA should be stricken down for vagueness, maintaining that the vague wording of the law infringed on First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ACLU, with Justice Stevens writing within the court’s decision that “the interest in encouraging the freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."

The precedent of Reno v. ACLU is particularly significant in cases like Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton as it covers efforts made to regulate explicit online content. It is crucial to recognize that Reno v. ACLU established that speech on the internet is also protected on First Amendment grounds. Additionally, the sweeping law in question in Reno was seen as overly burdening adult expression online, underscoring the importance of alternative restrictions that wouldn’t be as restrictive on such an overly broad type of online content. 

Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton (2024)  and Its Implications

In 2023, Texas passed HB 1181, a statute “relating to restricting access to sexual material harmful to minors on an Internet website.” This has entailed forms of age-verification to access porn sites, typically in the form of submitting government identification in order to access sites. Paxton is the culmination of a trial and appeal judging the permissibility of the statute on First Amendment grounds, primarily on the level of scrutiny the statute should be subjected to based on its goal and implementation. The Supreme Court case is a certiorari briefing, preoccupying itself with a petition for certiorari; said petition argues for a higher court, in this case the Supreme Court, to judge whether a lower court “has incorrectly decided an important question of law.” 

The Paxton case highlights the tensions that can arise between the issue of protecting minors from harmful content and adequately preserving free speech rights. While the protection of minors is evidently a meaningful government interest, it can bring about laws and regulations that can easily overstep and surpass the level of restrictive means the government is allowed to take. A concern that has been raised involves whether a statute like HB 1181 can create a gateway to restricting content that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment, with organizations like the ACLU pointing out the statute’s “[inherent vagueness].” 

Conclusion

Whatever outcome comes from Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton, it’ll serve to stress the constitutional challenges that come with regulating certain forms of online content. While the protection of minors during their online free reign is of compelling public interest, courts have consistently judged that speech regulations must be narrowly tailored to avoid any broad negative effects on any online lawful content. Foundational precedents like Miller v. California and Reno v. ACLU show that it remains pivotal to make sure that any regulations on material, whether online or not, does not infringe upon expressive freedoms protected by the First Amendment. As courts continue to encounter such cases, it is up to them to find a balance between censorship and maintaining constitutional protections.

Image Source: National Public Radio