
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
FIRE staff responds to the Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton that addresses a Texas law requiring age verification for accessing certain sexual material online.
Joining us:Will Creeley — Legal director
Bob Corn-Revere — Chief counsel
Ronnie London — General counsel
Timestamps:01:21 How the case wound up at the Supreme Court
06:57 Bob’s experience with arguing strict scrutiny in the courts
09:32 Ronnie’s perspective on the ruling
10:22 Brick + mortar stores vs. online sites
12:07 Has the Court established a new category of partially protected speech?
13:36 What speech is still subject to strict scrutiny after the ruling?
15:55 What does it mean to address the “work as a whole” in the internet context?
17:24 What modifications to the ruling, if any, would have satisfied FIRE?
18:06 What are the alternatives to address the internet’s risks toward minors?
20:16 For non-lawyer Americans, what is the best normative argument against the ruling?
22:38 Why is this ruling a “canary in the coal mine?”
23:36 How is age verification really about identity verification?
24:42 Why did the Court assume the need to protect children without citing any scientific findings in its ruling?
26:17 Does the ruling allow for more identity-based access barriers to lawful online speech?
28:04 Will Americans have to show ID to get into a public library?
29:30 Why does stare decisis seem to mean little to nothing to the Court?
32:08 Will there be a problem with selective enforcement of content-based restrictions on speech?
34:12 Could the ruling spark a patchwork of state laws that create digital borders?
36:26 Is there any other instance where the Court has used intermediate scrutiny in a First Amendment case?
37:29 Is the Court going to keep sweeping content-based statutes in the “incidental effect on speech” bucket?
38:14 Is sexual speech considered obscene?
40:33 How does the ruling affect adult content on mainstream social media platforms like Reddit and X?
43:27 Where does the ruling leave us on age verification laws?
Show notes:- Supreme Court ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf
- FIRE statement on FSC v. Paxton ruling: https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-upholding-age-verification-adult-content
- FIRE’s brief for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.thefire.org/news/supreme-court-agrees-review-fifth-circuit-decision-upholding-texas-adult-content-age
- FIRE’s amicus brief in support of petitioners and reversal: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/amicus-brief-support-petitioners-and-reversal-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton
4.6
192192 ratings
FIRE staff responds to the Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton that addresses a Texas law requiring age verification for accessing certain sexual material online.
Joining us:Will Creeley — Legal director
Bob Corn-Revere — Chief counsel
Ronnie London — General counsel
Timestamps:01:21 How the case wound up at the Supreme Court
06:57 Bob’s experience with arguing strict scrutiny in the courts
09:32 Ronnie’s perspective on the ruling
10:22 Brick + mortar stores vs. online sites
12:07 Has the Court established a new category of partially protected speech?
13:36 What speech is still subject to strict scrutiny after the ruling?
15:55 What does it mean to address the “work as a whole” in the internet context?
17:24 What modifications to the ruling, if any, would have satisfied FIRE?
18:06 What are the alternatives to address the internet’s risks toward minors?
20:16 For non-lawyer Americans, what is the best normative argument against the ruling?
22:38 Why is this ruling a “canary in the coal mine?”
23:36 How is age verification really about identity verification?
24:42 Why did the Court assume the need to protect children without citing any scientific findings in its ruling?
26:17 Does the ruling allow for more identity-based access barriers to lawful online speech?
28:04 Will Americans have to show ID to get into a public library?
29:30 Why does stare decisis seem to mean little to nothing to the Court?
32:08 Will there be a problem with selective enforcement of content-based restrictions on speech?
34:12 Could the ruling spark a patchwork of state laws that create digital borders?
36:26 Is there any other instance where the Court has used intermediate scrutiny in a First Amendment case?
37:29 Is the Court going to keep sweeping content-based statutes in the “incidental effect on speech” bucket?
38:14 Is sexual speech considered obscene?
40:33 How does the ruling affect adult content on mainstream social media platforms like Reddit and X?
43:27 Where does the ruling leave us on age verification laws?
Show notes:- Supreme Court ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf
- FIRE statement on FSC v. Paxton ruling: https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-upholding-age-verification-adult-content
- FIRE’s brief for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.thefire.org/news/supreme-court-agrees-review-fifth-circuit-decision-upholding-texas-adult-content-age
- FIRE’s amicus brief in support of petitioners and reversal: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/amicus-brief-support-petitioners-and-reversal-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton
959 Listeners
596 Listeners
2,250 Listeners
27 Listeners
2,837 Listeners
1,501 Listeners
806 Listeners
725 Listeners
3,773 Listeners
16,078 Listeners
790 Listeners
8,695 Listeners
719 Listeners
100 Listeners
630 Listeners