By Larry Magid
By a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, the United States Supreme Court voted to uphold a Texas law requiring users to verify their age before accessing websites that host material considered “sexually explicit” and “obscene to minors.” Texas argued the law was necessary to shield children from harmful content. Critics warned it could chill adult expression and erode privacy. While the ruling could apply to other states, it does not create a federal policy — as of now, that is left up to each state.
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, acknowledged that the Texas law does burden protected adult speech, but the Court viewed this burden as incidental, not a total ban. Adults can still access the material; they just have to verify their age.
Dissent over privacy issues
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, offered a dissent, arguing that strict scrutiny should have applied. The Texas law, they contended, doesn’t just burden adult speech incidentally—it chills it directly. By requiring users to upload government-issued IDs or link their access to personal data, such as job or mortgage records, the law deters many adults from viewing constitutionally protected content.
Kagan underscored the privacy threat: users might fear that their identities or viewing habits could be disclosed—whether by hacking, subpoena, or corporate misuse.
“The First Amendment,” she wrote, “prevents making speech hard, as well as banning it outright.” She wrote that the State should be foreclosed from restricting adults’ access to protected speech if that is not in fact necessary. Many parents rely on filters and other parental controls to protect children from inappropriate content. For more on parental control tools, see ConnectSafely’s Family Guide to Parental Controls.
Implications for social media
While this case centers on sexually explicit content—which most people, including all nine justices, agree is harmful to children—it raises broader questions about age verification and access to online platforms. Some lawmakers have proposed extending age-verification requirements to social media, with a few going so far as to advocate outright bans for users under 16. Others are pushing for parental consent requirements for teens under 16—or even under 18—to access platforms like Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok.
Although the Court’s ruling in this case doesn’t directly address social media access (and, to be clear, I’m not a lawyer), it doesn’t appear to establish legal precedent in that area. However, with multiple states—including Utah, Texas, Louisiana, and others—enacting or proposing laws to restrict or regulate teens’ access to social media, I fully expect the Supreme Court to take up this issue.
Although it’s well outside the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, Australia has already passed a law that, once it takes effect late this year, would ban social media for teens under 16.