The Misapplication of Protection: Why Age-Verification Laws Fail Both Children and the First Amendment

Written by Jorge Astorga, Edited by Regena Lahti

Vol. 2, Issue 2 – May 2026

Introduction:

        In recent years, several U.S. states have enacted pornography age-verification laws requiring government identification, digital authentication, or third-party verification before users may access online sexual content. Although framed as measures to protect minors, these laws raise serious constitutional concerns. Restrictions on access to sexual expression trigger strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, requiring the government to demonstrate that the regulation advances a compelling State interest, is narrowly tailored, and represents the least restrictive means available.[1] Age-verification mandates impose substantial privacy burdens by requiring adults to disclose identifying information to access lawful expressive material. At the same time, empirical research suggests that adolescents’ engagement with pornography is shaped less by website accessibility than by gaps in sexual education and limited communication with adults. Pornography age-verification laws, therefore, fail strict scrutiny because they are not the least restrictive means of addressing minors’ exposure to sexual content, particularly when alternatives such as comprehensive sex education and family communication are available. The rapid expansion of these laws reveals a deeper constitutional problem: a growing disconnect between the First Amendment standards courts claim to apply and the increasingly permissive approach they have adopted in practice.

[1] Daniel S. Anduze, “Obscenity Revisited: Defending Recent Age-Verification Laws Against First Amendment Challenges,” Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems 58(1) (2024): 147-192.

Legislative Background and Strict Scrutiny

        Recent state-level efforts in the United States have introduced pornography age-verification laws requiring digital ID checks, government documentation, or third-party credentialing before accessing sexually explicit online content. These barriers often require users to submit personal information such as credit card details or government-issued identification, create third-party verification accounts, or even provide biometric data like facial scans to confirm their age. States such as Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi have adopted these measures [2]. These laws reflect a broader trend of relying on technological barriers to regulate minors’ exposure to sexual material. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition reaffirmed that restrictions aimed at limiting access to sexual content, even for the stated purpose of protecting minors, trigger the highest level of judicial review [3]. The Court held that the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) was unconstitutional because it prohibited lawful expressive material that did not involve actual children. Age-verification statutes regulate access to sexual expression, placing them within the category of content-based restrictions subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. Courts have long recognized that conditioning access to protected speech, through identification requirements, licensing, or administrative barriers, constitutes a burden on speech that triggers strict scrutiny, even when the underlying content remains lawful. This principle is central to Ashcroft, which made clear that the government cannot indirectly suppress adult access to sexual expression by imposing procedural obstacles that chill lawful use.

        Under strict scrutiny, the government must demonstrate that the regulation serves a compelling interest, is narrowly tailored, and represents the least restrictive means available [4]. Although protecting children is recognized as a compelling interest, strict scrutiny requires more than a statement of purpose: the government must demonstrate that the regulation meaningfully advances that interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve it [5]. Yet courts and lawmakers rarely question whether age-verification mechanisms reduce minors’ exposure to sexual content. Instead, legislative assertions are often accepted at face value, presuming that access-blocking technologies will limit youth exposure despite limited empirical support. Emerging research shows that adolescents’ engagement with pornography is shaped less by the ease of website access and more by broader educational and social factors, including gaps in sexual knowledge, limited communication with adults, and the absence of media literacy [6]. This disconnect between legislative assumptions and documented causes of youth exposure suggests that age-verification laws do not meaningfully advance the compelling interest they claim to protect.

        These findings also raise questions about whether age-verification laws represent the least restrictive means of achieving child protection. Verification mandates impose burdens on adults who must disclose personal identifying information to access lawful speech. At the same time, less restrictive alternatives, such as comprehensive sex education, have demonstrated success in addressing the underlying causes of youth exposure [7]. Legislative debates frequently rely on moral and political narratives about sexuality rather than empirical research, resulting in laws that assert a compelling interest but struggle to satisfy the evidentiary requirements of strict scrutiny [8].

        Contemporary judicial treatment of age-verification laws also reflects a shift in constitutional analysis. In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the Supreme Court upheld Texas’s age-verification statute by treating it as an access regulation designed to protect minors and applying intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny [9]. The Court accepted Texas’s assertions about harms to minors without demanding substantial empirical evidence. It declined to seriously engage with the question of whether educational or less speech-restrictive alternatives could serve the same interest. This reasoning conflicts with Ashcroft, which held that regulations burdening adult access to protected sexual expression must be subject to strict scrutiny regardless of how the state characterizes them.

        By reclassifying a content-based burden as a neutral access regulation, Paxton allows governments to evade strict scrutiny through labeling alone, weakening a core First Amendment safeguard. The Court’s approach reflects a growing willingness to dilute First Amendment protections when regulations are framed as safeguarding minors. Together, these developments illustrate how age-verification laws rely on unsupported assumptions and sweeping mechanisms while courts increasingly relax the doctrinal safeguards central to Ashcroft.

[2] Majid Yar, “Protecting Children from Internet Pornography? Critical Assessment of Statutory Age Verification and its Enforcement in the UK,” Policing: An International Journal 43(1) (2020): 183-197

[3] Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).

[4] Daniel S. Anduze, “Obscenity Revisited: Defending Recent Age-Verification Laws Against First Amendment Challenges,” Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems 58(1) (2024): 147-192.

[5] Daniel S. Anduze, “Obscenity Revisited: Defending Recent Age-Verification Laws Against First Amendment Challenges,” Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems 58(1) (2024): 147-192.

[6] T. M. Michels et al., “Initiating Sexual Experiences: How Do Young Adolescents Make Decisions Regarding Early Sexual Activity?” Journal of Research on Adolescence 15(4) (2005): 583-607. 

[7] M. Lameiras-Fernández et al., “Sex Education in the Spotlight: What Is Working? Systematic Review,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(5) (2021): 2555. 

[8] Sex Education in Schools,” Georgetown Journal of Gender & the Law 26(2) (2025): 1009–1051.

[9] Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton, 606 U.S. (2025). 

Censorship and Privacy Concerns:

            Beyond doctrinal concerns about strict scrutiny, age-verification laws also raise serious implications for privacy and access to protected speech. Because users must disclose personally identifying information, such as government IDs, to view lawful content, these statutes deter access by imposing intrusive verification requirements. These dynamic parallels longstanding First Amendment concerns about compelled identification, where restrictions on anonymity can suppress lawful expressive activity. Age verification laws rely on private verification vendors and third-party identity databases, expanding the scope of surveillance and exposing users to potential data misuse. Such systems create unnecessary privacy harms, particularly where less restrictive alternatives exist [10][11].

            These concerns are no longer hypothetical. Discord recently announced that official ID  photographs from roughly 70,000 users were potentially leaked following a cyberattack,  demonstrating how identity verification systems expose individuals to significant privacy risks  

when platforms are required to store sensitive identification data [12]. When intimate browsing habits and government-issued documentation can be exposed in a single breach, the privacy burdens placed on adults become especially severe.

            Mandatory identification also eliminates anonymity, an interest the Supreme Court has recognized as central to First Amendment protection. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the Court affirmed that individuals must be free to engage with expressive materials without fear of surveillance or stigma [13]. Age-verification laws undermine this principle by conditioning access to sexual content on the disclosure of one’s identity, creating a chilling effect for adults who may fear reputational harm, data exposure, or government monitoring. The result is a regulatory structure in which adults may avoid accessing lawful material not because the content is prohibited, but because the verification process itself carries significant personal risk. The combination of privacy risks, lost anonymity, and deterrence of protected speech demonstrates how these statutes suppress lawful expression while failing to address the educational and social factors that shape minors’ exposure to sexual content.

​

[10] J. T. Cross, “Age Verification in the 21st Century: Swiping Away Your Privacy”, John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law 23(2) (2005): 363-410. 

[11] F. Gilbert, “Age Verification as a Shield for Minors on the Internet: A Quixotic Search”, Shidler Journal of Law, Commerce & Technology 5(2) (2008): 1-14.

[12] O. Chia, “ID Photos of 70,000 Users May Have Been Leaked, Discord Says,” BBC News (2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jmzd972leo. 

[13] McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). 

Social and Educational Roots of Adolescent Exposure:

        The root causes of minors’ engagement with pornography lie in unmet educational needs and limited family communication, rather than the mere accessibility of online content. Adolescents often turn to pornography to fill gaps in sexual knowledge created by insufficient school-based education and the absence of open dialogue with adults [14]. When adolescents lack accurate information about relationships, body development, and identity, pornography may function as an informal and often misleading educational source. Empirical research indicates that exposure patterns reflected broader developmental and social contexts, rather than simple

website availability [15][16]. These patterns point to the importance of interpersonal and educational influences in shaping adolescents’ engagement with sexual content.

        Family communication further shapes how adolescents process and understand sexual content. Open dialogue between parents and children about sexuality, relationships, and bodily development reduces reliance on pornography for information and supports healthier sexual decision-making [17]. In contrast, environments lacking such communication leave adolescents more likely to seek out alternative sources of information, including sexually explicit material.

        Taken together, these findings demonstrate that adolescent engagement with pornography is driven by educational and relational gaps, not merely access to online content. Policies that focus exclusively on restricting access fail to address these underlying conditions.

​

[14] T.M. Michels et al., “Initiating Sexual Experiences: How Do Young Adolescents Make Decisions Regarding Early Sexual Activity?” Journal of Research on Adolescence 15(4) (2005): 583-607.

[15] P. J. Wright, “Sex Education, Public Opinion, and Pornography: A Conditional Process Analysis”, Journal of Health Communication 23(5) (2018): 495-502.

[16] T. M. Michels et al., “Initiating Sexual Experiences: How Do Young Adolescents Make Decisions Regarding Early Sexual Activity?” Journal of Research on Adolescence 15(4) (2005): 583-607.

[17] R. A. Shtarkshall, J. S. Santelli & J. S. Hirsch, “Sex Education and Sexual Socialization: Roles for Educators and Parents”, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 39(2) (2007): 116-119.

​

Education as a Constitutional and Less Restrictive Alternative

       Because adolescents’ engagement with pornography stems from gaps in education and communication, effective policy responses must address those underlying conditions rather than rely solely on access restrictions. Comprehensive sex education is a well-established, evidence-based approach that provides adolescents with accurate, developmentally appropriate information about sexuality, consent, and relationships [18]. By improving knowledge and promoting critical understanding of sexual content, these programs reduce adolescents’ reliance on pornography as an educational substitute.

        Family-based communication reinforces these effects. Research shows that open discussions between parents and children about sexuality and relationships contribute to healthier decision-making and decreased dependence on external sources such as pornography [19]. Policies that support parental engagement, through school or community-based initiatives, can strengthen these protective dynamics without imposing restrictions on lawful adult expression.

        Within a strict scrutiny framework, these approaches represent less restrictive alternatives to age-verification laws. Unlike access-based regulations, education and communication strategies address the underlying drivers of adolescent exposure while preserving adults’ First Amendment rights. Because they advance the state’s protective interest through non-restrictive means, they better satisfy the requirement that the government pursues the least restrictive means available.

[18] M. Lameiras-Fernández et al., “Sex Education in the Spotlight: What Is Working? Systematic Review,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(5) (2021): 2555.

[19] R. A. Shtarkshall, J. S. Santelli & J. S. Hirsch, “Sex Education and Sexual Socialization: Roles for Educators and Parents,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 39(2) (2007): 116-119.

The Future of First Amendment Freedom

        What is at stake in this debate extends far beyond the question of how best to protect children or educate adolescents. Age-verification laws ultimately force a reckoning with the future of the First Amendment itself and with the integrity of the constitutional standards that govern state power over lawful expression. The constitutional tensions raised by age-verification laws reveal that the central issue is not merely legislative overreach but a deeper problem in how courts apply First Amendment doctrine. Ashcroft established that regulations affecting sexual expression must satisfy strict scrutiny and cannot burden lawful adult speech without clear evidence of necessity and narrow tailoring; Age-verification laws fail this standard. Yet recent cases suggest that courts are drifting away from the doctrinal rigor Ashcroft requires, creating uncertainty about the governing constitutional rule. Paxton exemplifies this shift.

        By treating age-verification as a neutral access regulation and applying intermediate rather than strict scrutiny, the Court weakened Ashcroft without acknowledging that it was altering the standard. This creates an unstable legal landscape in which restrictions on sexual expression survive judicial review not because they meet strict scrutiny, but because courts quietly adjust the level of scrutiny to accommodate legislative preferences. The result is a form of jurisprudence erosion; the strict-scrutiny framework remains nominally intact, but its practical force is diminished.

        This moment presents a critical choice for First Amendment jurisprudence. One option is to reaffirm Ashcroft as the controlling standard and apply strict scrutiny consistently to age-verification laws. Under a faithful application of Ashcroft, such regulations would almost certainly fail because they lack empirical support, burden significant amounts of adult speech, and are not the least restrictive means available. The other option is for the Court to openly revise Ashcroft and articulate a new standard for evaluating regulations justified by child protection in the digital age. Doing so transparently would provide doctrinal clarity, rather than allowing the law to shift through unacknowledged dilution of scrutiny. Until courts confront this choice directly, age-verification laws will continue to be evaluated under an inconsistent and increasingly permissive First Amendment framework. A meaningful reassessment requires acknowledging the current approach. Applying strict scrutiny in name but not in practice undermines both constitutional coherence and the protections that Ashcroft was meant to safeguard. As age-verification laws expand and courts redefine the boundaries of constitutional review, the question becomes unavoidable: Will the First Amendment remain a meaningful barrier against state control over lawful expression, or will it recede into a symbolic doctrine invoked but no longer enforced?