March 7, 2025 • 41 mins
Texas requires pornography websites to verify the age of the user. Porn companies/Free Speech Coalition has challenged this Texas law and in early 2025, the Supreme Court heard this case. We are currently awaiting a decision. Our guest from the National Center on Sexual Exploitation breaks this all down for us and explains the importance of this historical moment.
KEEPING KIDS SAFE ONLINE
Connect with us...
www.nextTalk.org
Facebook
Instagram
Contact Us...
admin@nextTalk.org
P.O. BOX 160111 San Antonio, TX 78280
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to the Next Talk podcast.
We are a nonprofit passionateabout keeping kids safe online.
We're learning together how tonavigate tech, culture and faith
with our kids.
I'm joined today by LisaThompson.
She is at the National Centeron Sexual Exploitation.
Lisa, thank you for being heretoday.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Well, thanks for having me, Mandy.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Well, explain to our listeners what you do at NACOSI.
I hope I'm saying thatcorrectly.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yes, you are.
So the long way of saying it isthe National Center on Sexual
Exploitation, and we do sayNACOSI for short because that is
a bit of a long name to get outthere.
But at the National Center onSexual Exploitation.
I've been there now for almost10 years and my current role is
(00:53):
I'm a vice president and I workin our research institute, which
is we kind of try to get intothe weeds in various studies
that are out there on varioustopics related to sexual abuse
and exploitation.
Wonderful.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
So appreciative of all the work you guys are doing
in DC and around the worldreally to start this
conversation and the legislativefront.
It's so important and that isreally what I want to talk about
today.
So there's a Supreme Courtdecision that we're awaiting and
I want to back up first.
Before it got to the SupremeCourt, texas is saying we need
(01:32):
age verification on pornographysites, and when we say that, I
want to define that, what thatis for people so they completely
understand what ageverification means.
So can you tell us the detailsof that Texas law first and then
let's move into why it's goneup to the Supreme Court?
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Right.
Well, we could go back evenfurther than the Texas law.
A lot of people are not awarethat back in the late 90s, the
US Congress tried to establishage verification online, which
is a way by which, if somebodyis going to access something
(02:10):
that we would consider that youneed to be above a certain age.
Because we recognize thatchildren shouldn't be accessing
certain kinds of material, theyhad passed a law which
established an age verificationrequirement in order to access
pornography online.
Tragically, that law gotoverturned by the Supreme Court.
(02:35):
Basically, that has opened thedoor for 20 years now to have an
unfettered access topornography sites by children.
The idea then that wasarticulated by the Supreme Court
was that, oh well, if parentsare concerned, filters will do
the job.
Filters will be sufficient inorder to protect children from
(02:57):
seeing inappropriate materialsonline line, and if there ever
was a false or just completelyout of touch kind of decision,
this was it right.
The court really made a hugeblunder here in saying that we
had to rely 100% on filters.
(03:18):
So for decades that has beenthe case and, tragically, a lot
of parents don't utilize filters.
But there's another host ofproblems.
While some filters do a goodjob, there's a myriad of ways in
which children can get exposedto pornography in online
environments, largely becausethey're online in a lot of
(03:41):
different ways, in differentsettings.
And even if you have the mostdiligent parents and trying to
police all this stuff and set upall these protections, there's
loopholes, there's ways thatpeople get around it.
So, I mean, one of the easiest,of course, is just other
children in their schoolenvironment.
So let's say you're parent A,you've done everything to create
(04:06):
that protective barrier aroundyour children to help them not
get exposed to pornographyonline.
You've got filters on yourdevices, your home computer, on
your gaming systems, on theirhandheld devices.
You've done all that stuff.
But your child goes to school.
Their kid, their friends, theirpeers, have devices at school
(04:29):
and their peers, their parents,aren't doing the same, and so
their children have access topornography and they say hey to
your child.
Hey, look at this.
Look what I see Isn't this?
Because that is what happened.
That's such a common scenarioover and over that other
children get, you know, exposedchildren expose other children
(04:50):
to pornography.
At any rate, the court made adisastrous decision, and where?
So?
That has resulted in roughly 20years of children having
largely unfettered access topornography.
Now, yes, there's some familiesthat do a lot of valiant work to
try to protect their kids andthey are maybe able to delay it,
(05:12):
push off the age at which ithappens, but invariably,
children get exposed topornography online.
It's almost impossible, it'snot a matter of if it's when
your child gets exposed.
I'm sure you've probably heardthat expression before, and it's
tragic because, also, it seemslike the age at which children
are getting exposed is justgetting younger and younger, and
(05:36):
once they're exposed, it's thismoment you can't undo in their
development.
It's this watershed moment intheir lives where something that
was off, a switch that was off,gets flipped on.
For many while it's initiallyconfusing and maybe even
(05:59):
alarming or startling to them,it sparks curiosity.
Startling to them, it sparkscuriosity, and I can't tell you
how many times I've heard nowadults who say, well, I saw that
and I got curious, so I wentback and I wanted to see more,
and then that leads to thisdownward spiral, this cycle
(06:20):
right, where they see it, theyget curious and then they keep
coming back to it becausethey're curious and then
eventually they get excited byit.
Right, their bodies respond towhat they're seeing and for some
, that's going to lead to ayears, some cases decades long
struggle with pornography use,pornography addiction.
(06:42):
So that's where we have beenand more and more people have
been waking up to this problem.
Right, it's impacted countlessfamilies across this country.
I mean, I would have no problem.
You know from my personalexperience.
I really think it's in themillions that this has happened
to.
The new movement to establishage verification laws really got
(07:05):
kick-started in Louisiana.
So there was a legislator therewho got really concerned about
this issue and decided to passan age verification law there.
Now the issue, the concern, hasalways been if these laws will
pass constitutional musterbecause of this previous
decision that was made way back.
(07:27):
You know about the law that waspassed in the late 90s.
I think the final courtdecision came out in like the
early 2000s.
So that has been the realbarrier or concern, because
people have felt like theirhands were tied in that anything
they might pass would not passconstitutional muster based on
(07:49):
this previous Supreme Courtdecision.
But Louisiana passed this law.
They started an ageverification regime there.
You know states and parents areall across the country are
wrestling with this issue andthose parents are all across the
country are wrestling with thisissue and those parents some of
them are legislators and wordgot out and so then legislators
across the country startedpassing similar bills and
(08:13):
different variations on a theme,some of them trying to deal
with some of the concerns thatwe had about the language and
whether or not it would passconstitutional muster or not.
So there have been tweaks,there's different variations out
there, but now we have about 19states across the country have
passed age verification laws.
So in terms of age verification,which you asked me very
(08:34):
specifically about that, whatdoes that mean?
It's like it's just like we'retrying to have a child or an
adult.
I should say an adult would beshowing their ID to a clerk at a
store.
Or let's imagine a person hasgone to a liquor store and they
(08:55):
want to buy a bottle ofsomething.
They have to show their ID.
I mean, many of us have been atthe grocery store.
Maybe you're getting a bottleof wine or something and even
though maybe you look 30 or 40,they're IDing you to be very
cautious to make sure that aminor is not buying something
that, as a society, we havedecided is inappropriate for
(09:17):
children.
This happens all the time instores, brick and mortar stores
all across the country and we'vesaid, oh, to drive a car you
have to be a certain age and wemake sure you get a driver's
license and we verify the agebefore the children can start.
We've made a system wherechildren can start training to
get a driver's license.
(09:38):
This has been the way we managethings in the brick and mortar
world, but in the online worldthat hasn't been applied to the
issue of pornography.
Now, over the years, there arevarious sectors in the online
space where age verification hasbeen applied, like online
gambling, for instance, is agood example where you cannot a
(10:00):
child cannot just you know hopon onto an online gambling site.
The Supreme Court hasestablished this right to own
pornography or to havepornography within your own home
, but distributing this stuff ifit's considered obscene, it's
not legal.
Now, most people are under themisconception that only material
(10:24):
that depicts children isillegal.
Any material that's depictingchildren involved in sexual
activities that involves theexhibition of their genitalia,
or even if it doesn't even haveto be involved in sex acts or
there can be just nudity.
That kind of material is whatthey call per se contraband.
(10:51):
It's that on the face of it, ifthat's what it has in it.
It's illegal, you can't own it,there's not even a right to
have it in your home.
It's illegal material and aslike a researcher or people
doing research on this area,we're not even allowed to have
it.
And if we see it, we have toreport it immediately.
We can't download it, we can'tsave it.
It's illegal to have.
(11:13):
Period.
Now, material that's depictingadults has to be adjudicated.
It has to be determined Is thisobscene?
Does it meet the standard ofobscenity, or is it something
that has maybe some sort ofredeeming value that we're going
to permit in society?
(11:34):
And there was a famous SupremeCourt decision back in the 70s
called Miller v California,where the Supreme Court
established a three-part test todetermine what kind of material
meets the standard of obscenity.
It's called the lapse test.
But it has to do whether or notthere's any literary value, if
(11:56):
there's any artistic value tothe material.
If the community would considerit offensive, right, Like you
wouldn't sit down and want tolook at this material with your
coworkers or with your familymembers.
There's just something that islike.
Automatically, you know itviolates the community standards
(12:18):
, right?
So there's this three-part testthat determines whether
something is obscene or not.
But the challenge is that Ourprosecutors have to bring
charges of obscenity against thepeople who distribute it.
So we can't just march into astore on the street that's
(12:44):
selling pornography.
You and I can't.
We would have to have a lawenforcement investigation that
would seize materials.
A prosecutor would have tobring a case against the people
who are distributing thismaterial on charges of obscenity
, and then there's a jury trial.
The jury has to decide if thismaterial that they're selling
(13:07):
meets the standard of obscenity,and then the people who are
distributing that content can beput in jail.
And so that was happening.
Back in like the 80s there was aunder the leadership of
President Ronald Reagan.
He established a unit in theDepartment of Justice that was
investigating and prosecutingobscenity cases all across the
(13:30):
country, and so majordistributors of hardcore
pornography were going to jail.
But that time we had we weretalking mostly about like DVD
type stuff.
Because you know, pornographyhas migrated.
It's shifted in terms of theformat in which it's made
available and is most consumedby the public, Whereas in the
(13:50):
past, you know, it was maybestill photos or magazines and it
more, it moved into videoformats and went on to DVDs and
then, of course, with the adventof the internet, it went online
and at first it was just stillgrainy photos that people would
collect and put up on forums andthen, once streaming became
(14:12):
available, it became videos andwith high-speed powered internet
, we got more and more vivid andrealistic material online, and
now we've even got AI-generatedmaterial out there.
So there's been this.
You know, as technologyadvances and changes, the porn
(14:34):
sector is always takingadvantage of those new
developments to develop new waysto deliver pornography to
consumers.
I just want to say about theprosecutions in the 80s and 90s
there was a tremendous amount of.
There were just amazing numberof cases brought against
distributors of pornography.
(14:54):
As I mentioned, they were goingto jail.
This was all done out of theleadership that was coming out
of the Department of Justice,but that has to be a priority of
the Department of Justice inorder to bring these obscenity
cases.
To bring these obscenity cases.
And then you have a change ofadministration.
(15:14):
You have a backing off from.
This was like oh, that's not apriority anymore, we're not
going to do these, or you justget fewer and fewer in number
till there are no obscenityprosecutions anymore, and so
what you have happening is that,right at the time when
pornography was shifting to theonline space, you have a
complete backing off fromprosecutions of obscenity.
(15:35):
So people have this idea thatbecause well, it's on the
Internet, it must be legal.
They have this idea that allthe pornography that's not
involving children that's on theInternet is on the face, it's
just legal.
Face, it's just legal.
(15:55):
So there's this hugemisperception and
misunderstanding about the lawin the United States that has
been fostered by the fact thatthe US Department of Justice has
not brought an obscenityprosecution against online
distributors of pornography inprobably 15 to 20 years now.
I mean, it's been a long timesince we've had a prosecution of
any kind of against for fordistribution of obscenity.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
I mean what you're telling me is it is illegal
really for pornography to be outthere in the public sphere, but
because the Department ofJustice is not prosecuting it,
it's, it's out there.
Is that what?
Speaker 2 (16:32):
you're saying.
Well, what I'm saying is thatit has to be decided by a jury
that the material that would beon a particular website meets
the standard of obscenity.
And if they have met thatthree-part test that was
established by the Supreme Courtin the 1970s which, I would
(16:52):
argue any mainstream pornographysite out there today would be
violating the test, the Millertest.
I don't think there'd be anyproblem of convicting these
online distributors ofpornography of obscenity
(17:13):
distributors of pornography ofobscenity.
So that's a very specific word.
So they're not allowed todistribute obscenity.
Now, perhaps there's somepornography out there that some
community might not considerobscene.
Certainly what's been availableon the mainstream, the most
popular platforms, I think,would reasonable juries would
find obscene.
It wouldn't be a hard bar topass to get over that bar.
(17:37):
What I'm saying is distributionof obscenity, whether it be on
cable television, through the USmails or on the internet.
That's illegal.
Distribution of obscenity isillegal, but the US Department
of Justice has not prosecutedobscenity in a long, long time,
(17:58):
so it looks like it's legal.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Okay, thank you for that history lesson.
That is very valuableinformation.
And Louisiana and all of thesestates that are joining in on
age verification, I mean that'sbeen started in the last couple
years, right, and that hasresurrected.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Right, it's been recent, I'd say within the last
five years.
I can't remember precisely whatyear the Louisiana law was
passed, but it did spark.
It was a watershed moment thatsparked many other states to
jump into this fight, because Ithink people recognize, lots of
people are aware that this is aserious problem, but they just
felt like they didn't know howto move forward and they were
(18:41):
inspired by what?
By what Louisiana did.
And so now there's at least 19states that have age
verification laws in place andthere's many other states that
are moving to do somethingsimilar.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Another thing that I wanted to point out, and I loved
your example of going into abrick and mortar store with an
ID.
I think of an R-rated movie too.
Like an underage person cannotgo into an R-rate in our state
anyway, I think that was a greatexample of going into a brick
and mortar store needing toshare your ID.
So what we're talking abouthere with age verification is,
(19:17):
in order to access apornographic website, a screen
just pops up where you have toverify your identity and you
have to enter your birth date.
Is that correct, like it's assimple as that, or is it?
It's different?
Okay, it would be differentthan that.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Explain that to us Right.
So this is where I think a lotof the fear mongering comes in
by the opponents of ageverification, because they are
alleging that in order to do ageverification, there's going to
be some great big databasethat's collecting your
information and storing it andit's going to know everything
about the people who are goinginto pornography sites online.
(19:54):
But that's not how thetechnology works at all.
So there is an association ofwhat they call the Association
of Age Verification Providers.
It's a big formal associationof many different companies that
provide different forms of ageverification technology and
(20:16):
there's assortment of ways whicha person's age can be
determined by these companiesusing amazing forms of tech.
It's just so incredible what'spossible now.
For instance, there's onecompany that if you hold up your
hand in front of the camera andyou make these I don't know,
it's like three different handmotions.
(20:37):
They can tell how old you areby your hand Just seeing your
hand make these certain motionsand they keep the resolution
grainy so they can't get.
They can't possibly zoom in andget your fingerprints
resolution grainy, so they can'tget.
They can't possibly zoom in andget your fingerprints, but you
just make these three handmotions whammo, they just you're
.
You're over 18 and you can go onto get on to the some mature
(21:00):
site, some site for I don't knowshopping for alcohol or for if
you wanted to gamble orsomething, or obviously, to
pornography sites.
There's other means of doing itas well.
I'm trying to remember.
But what is important here isthat the age verification
providers they do not storepeople's data.
(21:21):
There's not some databasethat's keeping your date of
birth, that's keeping your name.
There's nothing like that.
Some of the providers canactually do it by checking other
information about you that'salready out there in the public
sphere, like whether or not youhave a mortgage.
They can check that way andthen, once it's verified, it's a
(21:45):
one-time thing.
It's not like you're having togo and verify your age every
single time you're trying to geton these sites and it's
relatively inexpensive to do so.
It's just incredible.
And in fact they submitted.
The Age Verification ProvidersAssociation submitted a
fantastic brief to the SupremeCourt in this recent case that
(22:09):
is kind of what is the impetusfor our conversation today which
deals with a law in Texas, anage verification law in Texas.
And so the age verificationprovider submitted this brief to
the court, which is basicallygiving the Supreme Court in this
case background informationthat they need to be aware of in
order to help them make theirdecision when they're
(22:30):
considering what to do.
What was astonishing is thatyou have actually, when you have
engaged in an age verificationprocess online, you are
revealing less about yourselfthan if you were to hand your
driver's license to a grocerystore clerk, because that
grocery store clerk can see youraddress, they can see your
(22:51):
picture, they can see your dateof birth.
It's being flashed out in theair.
Maybe some camera could take apicture of it, who knows?
But, like, there's moreinformation about you that is
publicly accessible in thatmoment at the grocery store
checkout than there is by doingage verification online.
And there's really a hugeamount of standards that they
(23:13):
have that make sure that they'reprotecting people's privacy and
, like I said, it's thisone-time check and it's over,
and they do not they absolutelydo not want to be keeping the
data.
There's not any possibility ofa hack because they're not
storing anything.
There's not any possibility ofa hack because they're not
(23:34):
storing anything.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
So it's incredibly safe technology and this is
where the opponents of ageverification are trying to raise
a whole lot of fear about it,because people have this
misperception that it's creatinga database of information about
people.
Well, I assume this same ageverification like that putting
your hand in front of the camerais being used now on gambling
sites too.
Right, so that's the same.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Yeah, in fact, some pornography sites are already
using age verification and yeah,it's already in use by
companies all across the worldwho are, for various reasons,
need to make sure that theirconsumers are over a certain age
.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
So the argument of that it's collecting and storing
data like it's already outthere, like you're already doing
that through other ageverification sites.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Well, no, what I'm saying is that the age there.
There is publicly accessibledata about people out there that
an age verification company canaccess to say, yes, you're over
18.
But they're not storing thatdata, they don't keep it and
hoard it.
There's information out therethat, like, for instance, we
(24:37):
could go online I could probablyfigure out, mandy, if I knew,
like, where you lived and if Iknew your address, I could
probably find out someinformation about the value of
your home.
I might be able to find out, ifI was good at this, like how
much if you have a mortgage onyour home.
(24:57):
That's what these companies arelooking for Indicia, you know,
indicators that you are an adultby records that are publicly
available out there.
They're not keeping and storingthat information.
That's the point I really wantto make clear here.
They're not collecting andstoring that information.
Yes, that's the point I reallywant to make clear here.
They're not collecting andstoring information.
They're doing this process tosay quickly, ascertain, oh, this
(25:18):
is an adult.
And then they just say click,yeah, you're an adult, and you
move on.
That's it, it's over.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
So one of these largest age verification
companies submitted a brief tothe Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
It's an association, it's like a whole group of them
that has a trade association.
They all agreed and theytogether submitted a brief to
the.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
Supreme Court, okay, saying we're not storing the
data.
This is a normal process.
Okay, right, okay, great.
So I do want to back up, justfor people who may not have
followed this case.
So we've got Louisiana and 19states, including texas, saying
we want age verification forpornography sites.
Texas gets sued over this,right, texas in particular.
Is there a reason that texaswas singled out something
(26:07):
different in our law, or was itjust it was brought here because
I know I'm in texas and I knowif I go to Pornhub right now,
there's a letter that'sbasically saying we are being
sued, we're going to the SupremeCourt.
Like that's what I get, whichis awesome, for you know, I do
work with with young kids beingexposed to porn.
So I'm like that is fantasticthat there's a stop and it just
(26:30):
doesn't pop up when you'researching something.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
You know, I wish I knew why they picked Texas first
.
I don't know why they suedTexas instead of Louisiana or
one of the other states, butthey did choose to sue the state
of Texas.
And so that state that thatcase, which is now currently
worked its way all the way up tothe Supreme Court, is called
(26:53):
FSC v Paxton.
So FSC stands for Free SpeechCoalition.
That is a really fancy name forthe porn industry lobby.
I mean, they're so clever,right?
They're not saying, oh, we'rethe Pornography Association
providers or whatever.
No, they're the Free SpeechCoalition.
(27:14):
So that's how they stylethemselves as protectors of free
speech, when they're reallyjust purveyors of horribly
degrading material that isaddictive and damaging to people
.
But that's how they buildthemselves.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
So this group that is suing Texas, that is kind of
like an association to yespornography.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
So it's not just Pornhub but it's other companies
right, there's several otherlargest company involved, but
they're yeah, they're involved,but the I'm not sure all the
entities that are a part of theFSC, the Free Speech Coalition.
But it is a pornographyassociation trade association,
(28:03):
just like the Age VerificationProviders Association.
They're an association of mostof the major players in that
industry.
The Free Speech Coalition isbasically the mouthpiece of the
(28:40):
porn industry.
It's a spokesman.
It's advocating to regulatepornography and children's
accessibility to it.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
The FSC is often involved in those cases.
Well, and in just a practicallevel, having conversations with
our kids at home about the freespeech component, I know one
thing that I say and I don'tknow if it's accurate.
You may want to speak into this, but I always say to my kids
like free speech, like I'm notsaying they can't have the site,
I'm saying it shouldn't beaccessible to minors.
To me that's a huge differencethan banning all porn, and I
(29:04):
mean I would be for banning allporn.
But I understand the freespeech argument a little bit
there.
What do you think?
What would you say to that?
Because that's just aconversation we've had in our
home about this issue and aboutpornography being labeled like a
free speech issue.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
If pornography is speech.
What kind of speech is it?
What is it saying?
What is it communicating?
Would you have this speech inpublic, with your friends, with
your family?
It's so indecent, it's sodebasing of those involved and
(29:40):
it's mostly it's terriblydebasing of women.
I don't consider it speech, butif I did consider it speech, I
would consider it hate speech.
It's a form of hate.
It's a degrading of the idea offree speech.
To me, like you're saying, likefree speech is an ideal in our
(30:02):
country, it's this lofty thingwhere we're able to articulate
great ideas or or disagree overbig ideas.
But pornography is so debasingto those, to everybody involved
in it and in creating it, andit's sending these absolutely
(30:24):
horrific messages about humansand human sexuality and how,
what, what sex is about, andit's just terrible.
So I guess I would probablycome up with something along
those lines.
It's been a while since I'vetalked about that, so I need to
brush up on it.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
No, I think that's a great conversation starter,
especially with our olderteenagers, who may understand a
little bit more about howdetrimental it is.
You know, and from our work,like in our nonprofit world
we've we see that pornographyfuels abuse, like like I mean
100% of the families we'vehelped, where a kid has abused
(30:59):
another kid sexually,pornography is always involved,
like porn is the perpetratorhere, and so you know it fuels
abuse, it fuels trafficking, itfuels the demand for trafficking
.
There's so many arguments thatcan be made that it could be
hate speech and I love that howyou said that, I think that's
very good and speech and I lovethat how you said that.
I think that's very good and agood conversation starter in our
(31:20):
homes with our kids.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
There's been research that looks at the titles of
pornography films on themainstream sites and they were
assessing it for themes ofsexual abuse and violence, right
so that there's a study thatcame out of the UK and they
found like really high incidenceof titles indicating abuse on
the home pages just the homepages, the titles that they were
(31:43):
looking at.
So the people who would land onthe home page particularly if
you're a kid, like immediatelyyou're getting socialized to
these ideas that are involvesexual violence and abuse or
exploitation just by visiting ahomepage of a pornography site.
What I was astounded byrecently was just how much
(32:04):
there's been a growth in thenormalization, say, for instance
, of incest in steprelationships.
Okay, so one of the biggestpurveyors of pornography will
say, oh well, we don't have, wedon't permit anything that's
incest.
But you go on their website andthe titles is step this step,
(32:27):
this step, this step.
Dad, step sister, mom.
You know everybody in these,it's in these incestuous step
relationships.
So they don't consider a steprelationship relationship a
family relationship.
And I just think this isegregious, because how many of
us know somebody who was abusedas a stepchild, right Over and
(32:48):
over and over the cases of abusethat are perpetrated against
children.
It's so many of the times it'sa step relative.
I don't think anybody who worksin sexual abuse and
exploitation would deny thatabuse of children is a huge
problem within step families.
And now you have these websitesthat normalize this on a massive
(33:11):
scale and, in fact, interesting.
I was just reading a studyyesterday and this came out in
2014.
It was looking at tags.
Basically, when people uploadcontent to pornography sites,
they give it terms that enablepeople to search to try to find
what they're looking for.
It's like shopping you want tofind what you want to consume
(33:34):
more easily.
So there's literally thousandsof terms that people will use to
describe the pornography thatthey're uploading.
One of the most common termswere mother, sister, brother,
father.
This was like more than 10years ago.
(33:54):
Those were the most common,some of the most common search
terms that they the tags thatthey found on the content that
was being uploaded to some ofthese, to two sites in
particular.
So my point is that there'sjust this speech that is on
these sites fuels abuse.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
That's kind of on a side note on how to talk to our
kids about this free speechargument.
But the Supreme Court we're notsaying your porn sites have to
come down.
The Supreme Court and the Texaslaw.
The debate is the ageverification.
We're not trying to get itlabeled hate speech.
We're not trying to get ittaken down.
We're simply saying you knowTexas is saying we want age
(34:39):
verification and the lobbyistsfor the porn industry have come
in and said no, this is againstour free speech Right.
So this is now at the SupremeCourt and they have heard the
case correctly.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Yes, they had oral arguments in January.
So you had the state of Texaspresenting their arguments, you
had the porn industry presentingtheir arguments.
It was pretty encouragingbecause the justices did come
down pretty hard on the pornindustry representative.
The guy who was arguing ontheir behalf.
There was a lot of really hardquestions for him.
The guy who was arguing ontheir behalf.
(35:14):
There was a lot of really hardquestions for him.
So we're optimistic that therewill be a favorable decision.
But it's hard to say.
It's like trying to read tealeaves.
We feel cautiously optimistic,I would say.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
Do we know when we expect a decision from the
Supreme Court?
Any time estimate?
Speaker 2 (35:35):
Well, it could be any time between now and the end of
June.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
Say that the age verification is upheld.
That's what we want.
We want it to be upheld inTexas, so I assume if that
happens, then the other statesthere may even be more joining
in because of this Supreme Courtdecision.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (35:57):
I would think so.
And then my other question iscould that possibly lead to a
federal age verification law atsome point, or what do?
Speaker 2 (36:08):
you think.
I do think that if the SupremeCourt were to uphold the lower
court's decision, the FifthCircuit's decision in FSC v
Paxton, that that would be areally positive signal for other
states to join in in passingsome sort of age verification
law.
So I would say that it woulddefinitely be a very strong
(36:30):
motivator for states that maybehave been waiting on the
sidelines, concerned that why gothrough this effort if it might
get struck down?
If the Supreme Court upholdsthe Fifth Circuit decision or
upholds it but still tells theFifth Circuit they need to do a
little tweaking, that is a verypositive sign for us and for
(36:51):
states who would like to join indoing something on this.
So I think this seems like it'spretty much in the state's
hands right now.
Speaker 1 (36:59):
Okay, well, thank you so much for that breakdown.
You gave us a lot of historythat we didn't even know.
You know went back decades ofhistory on this, which was great
.
You know you laid out for usexactly what is at stake here
with this Supreme Court decision.
Is there anything else that youwant to add?
Our listeners are all parents,so if there's anything else you
(37:22):
want to add to them, as they'regetting more educated about
what's happening and being ableto talk at home about the
Supreme Court case, Well, onething I should go back to
address is the issue of federalmatters on this.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
So there are different pieces of legislation
that are being proposed inCongress that are intended to
help prevent childhood exposureto pornography various bills.
One of them in particular iscalled COSA, the Child Online
Safety Act, which is somethingthat the National Center on
Sexual Exploitation has beenvery supportive of.
(37:57):
So I don't want to suggest thatwe can only deal with this at
the state level, but so far youknow, the age verification has
definitely been a state's ledfront.
You know move part of themovement, but there are various
federal pieces that oflegislation that are hopefully
will pass this year.
Cosa died at the very lastminute last year.
(38:19):
People were heartbroken becauseit would have been the first big
piece of child protectionlegislation on the internet in
two decades.
We can't bury our heads in thesand.
We can't hope that this won'thappen to your child.
You basically have to assumethat it will.
This won't happen to your child.
You basically have to assumethat it will and you want to be
(38:40):
as proactive as possible aboutgiving them the skills to help
handle that, navigate thatsituation when it happens and to
make sure that you are theperson that they know they can
come talk to, that you are theirsafe person, that when
something, when they seesomething that they're troubled
about or they see pornography,that they know they can come
(39:02):
talk to you.
And not I'm sure it's hardbecause you, the instinct would
be to have that panic moment andto be all reactive and upset.
You know, to let our upset comethrough, because we don't.
We're just heartbroken whenthis happens.
Right, because it's adisruption, it's an irreversible
(39:24):
disruption to their childhoodand their innocence.
But we have to maintain ourcomposure and then deal with our
emotions elsewhere so thatwe're not making creating fear
in our children when thishappens, but just creating that,
that open door where they cancome to you and be you.
You're that person they cancome to about these issues.
(39:44):
But definitely, definitely,definitely being proactive and
doing everything we can to delaythat moment.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
Absolutely.
We call that.
Avoid crazy parent mode at NextTalk.
That's what we call that, andI've been in crazy parent mode a
lot and had to go back andapologize.
And what's really cool aboutthat is going back to apologize
is beautiful, because I can sayI wasn't mad at you, you brought
that to me, you did everythingright.
I'm mad that you're growing upin a world that that's available
(40:13):
on your computer.
It shouldn't be explaining tothem why I was upset, but not
mad at them and and creatingthat safe space.
I mean, it's just so soimportant.
Lisa, thank you for being withus, thank you for that history
lesson and bringing us up tospeed, and we're going to be
waiting for the Supreme Courtdecision on this.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
Great Well, we'll hope everybody will be, you know
, keeping this in their thoughts.
If they're praying, people prayabout it.
It's a big moment.
It could be a major watershedand a big shift in how our
country has been dealing withthis issue, and it would be a
huge step forward for childprotection in our country if the
(40:53):
Supreme Court upholds the Texaslaw.
Speaker 1 (40:56):
Absolutely.
Thank you for all you do atNicosi and all of your team.
We really appreciate your work,thank you Great being with you.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
Thank you, too, for what you do.
Speaker 3 (41:05):
Next Talk is a 501c3 nonprofit keeping kids safe
online.
To support our work, make adonation at nexttalkorg.
Next Talk resources are notintended to replace the advice
of a trained healthcare or legalprofessional, or to diagnose,
treat or otherwise render expertadvice regarding any type of
medical, psychological, legal,financial or other problem.
You are advised to consult aqualified expert for your
(41:25):
personal treatment plan.
Welcome to the Next Talk podcast.
We are a nonprofit passionateabout keeping kids safe online.
We're learning together how tonavigate tech, culture and faith
with our kids.
I'm joined today by LisaThompson.
She is at the National Centeron Sexual Exploitation.
Lisa, thank you for being heretoday.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Well, thanks for having me, Mandy.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Well, explain to our listeners what you do at NACOSI.
I hope I'm saying thatcorrectly.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yes, you are.
So the long way of saying it isthe National Center on Sexual
Exploitation, and we do sayNACOSI for short because that is
a bit of a long name to get outthere.
But at the National Center onSexual Exploitation.
I've been there now for almost10 years and my current role is
(00:53):
I'm a vice president and I workin our research institute, which
is we kind of try to get intothe weeds in various studies
that are out there on varioustopics related to sexual abuse
and exploitation.
Wonderful.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
So appreciative of all the work you guys are doing
in DC and around the worldreally to start this
conversation and the legislativefront.
It's so important and that isreally what I want to talk about
today.
So there's a Supreme Courtdecision that we're awaiting and
I want to back up first.
Before it got to the SupremeCourt, texas is saying we need
(01:32):
age verification on pornographysites, and when we say that, I
want to define that, what thatis for people so they completely
understand what ageverification means.
So can you tell us the detailsof that Texas law first and then
let's move into why it's goneup to the Supreme Court?
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Right.
Well, we could go back evenfurther than the Texas law.
A lot of people are not awarethat back in the late 90s, the
US Congress tried to establishage verification online, which
is a way by which, if somebodyis going to access something
(02:10):
that we would consider that youneed to be above a certain age.
Because we recognize thatchildren shouldn't be accessing
certain kinds of material, theyhad passed a law which
established an age verificationrequirement in order to access
pornography online.
Tragically, that law gotoverturned by the Supreme Court.
(02:35):
Basically, that has opened thedoor for 20 years now to have an
unfettered access topornography sites by children.
The idea then that wasarticulated by the Supreme Court
was that, oh well, if parentsare concerned, filters will do
the job.
Filters will be sufficient inorder to protect children from
(02:57):
seeing inappropriate materialsonline line, and if there ever
was a false or just completelyout of touch kind of decision,
this was it right.
The court really made a hugeblunder here in saying that we
had to rely 100% on filters.
(03:18):
So for decades that has beenthe case and, tragically, a lot
of parents don't utilize filters.
But there's another host ofproblems.
While some filters do a goodjob, there's a myriad of ways in
which children can get exposedto pornography in online
environments, largely becausethey're online in a lot of
(03:41):
different ways, in differentsettings.
And even if you have the mostdiligent parents and trying to
police all this stuff and set upall these protections, there's
loopholes, there's ways thatpeople get around it.
So, I mean, one of the easiest,of course, is just other
children in their schoolenvironment.
So let's say you're parent A,you've done everything to create
(04:06):
that protective barrier aroundyour children to help them not
get exposed to pornographyonline.
You've got filters on yourdevices, your home computer, on
your gaming systems, on theirhandheld devices.
You've done all that stuff.
But your child goes to school.
Their kid, their friends, theirpeers, have devices at school
(04:29):
and their peers, their parents,aren't doing the same, and so
their children have access topornography and they say hey to
your child.
Hey, look at this.
Look what I see Isn't this?
Because that is what happened.
That's such a common scenarioover and over that other
children get, you know, exposedchildren expose other children
(04:50):
to pornography.
At any rate, the court made adisastrous decision, and where?
So?
That has resulted in roughly 20years of children having
largely unfettered access topornography.
Now, yes, there's some familiesthat do a lot of valiant work to
try to protect their kids andthey are maybe able to delay it,
(05:12):
push off the age at which ithappens, but invariably,
children get exposed topornography online.
It's almost impossible, it'snot a matter of if it's when
your child gets exposed.
I'm sure you've probably heardthat expression before, and it's
tragic because, also, it seemslike the age at which children
are getting exposed is justgetting younger and younger, and
(05:36):
once they're exposed, it's thismoment you can't undo in their
development.
It's this watershed moment intheir lives where something that
was off, a switch that was off,gets flipped on.
For many while it's initiallyconfusing and maybe even
(05:59):
alarming or startling to them,it sparks curiosity.
Startling to them, it sparkscuriosity, and I can't tell you
how many times I've heard nowadults who say, well, I saw that
and I got curious, so I wentback and I wanted to see more,
and then that leads to thisdownward spiral, this cycle
(06:20):
right, where they see it, theyget curious and then they keep
coming back to it becausethey're curious and then
eventually they get excited byit.
Right, their bodies respond towhat they're seeing and for some
, that's going to lead to ayears, some cases decades long
struggle with pornography use,pornography addiction.
(06:42):
So that's where we have beenand more and more people have
been waking up to this problem.
Right, it's impacted countlessfamilies across this country.
I mean, I would have no problem.
You know from my personalexperience.
I really think it's in themillions that this has happened
to.
The new movement to establishage verification laws really got
(07:05):
kick-started in Louisiana.
So there was a legislator therewho got really concerned about
this issue and decided to passan age verification law there.
Now the issue, the concern, hasalways been if these laws will
pass constitutional musterbecause of this previous
decision that was made way back.
(07:27):
You know about the law that waspassed in the late 90s.
I think the final courtdecision came out in like the
early 2000s.
So that has been the realbarrier or concern, because
people have felt like theirhands were tied in that anything
they might pass would not passconstitutional muster based on
(07:49):
this previous Supreme Courtdecision.
But Louisiana passed this law.
They started an ageverification regime there.
You know states and parents areall across the country are
wrestling with this issue andthose parents are all across the
country are wrestling with thisissue and those parents some of
them are legislators and wordgot out and so then legislators
across the country startedpassing similar bills and
(08:13):
different variations on a theme,some of them trying to deal
with some of the concerns thatwe had about the language and
whether or not it would passconstitutional muster or not.
So there have been tweaks,there's different variations out
there, but now we have about 19states across the country have
passed age verification laws.
So in terms of age verification,which you asked me very
(08:34):
specifically about that, whatdoes that mean?
It's like it's just like we'retrying to have a child or an
adult.
I should say an adult would beshowing their ID to a clerk at a
store.
Or let's imagine a person hasgone to a liquor store and they
(08:55):
want to buy a bottle ofsomething.
They have to show their ID.
I mean, many of us have been atthe grocery store.
Maybe you're getting a bottleof wine or something and even
though maybe you look 30 or 40,they're IDing you to be very
cautious to make sure that aminor is not buying something
that, as a society, we havedecided is inappropriate for
(09:17):
children.
This happens all the time instores, brick and mortar stores
all across the country and we'vesaid, oh, to drive a car you
have to be a certain age and wemake sure you get a driver's
license and we verify the agebefore the children can start.
We've made a system wherechildren can start training to
get a driver's license.
(09:38):
This has been the way we managethings in the brick and mortar
world, but in the online worldthat hasn't been applied to the
issue of pornography.
Now, over the years, there arevarious sectors in the online
space where age verification hasbeen applied, like online
gambling, for instance, is agood example where you cannot a
(10:00):
child cannot just you know hopon onto an online gambling site.
The Supreme Court hasestablished this right to own
pornography or to havepornography within your own home
, but distributing this stuff ifit's considered obscene, it's
not legal.
Now, most people are under themisconception that only material
(10:24):
that depicts children isillegal.
Any material that's depictingchildren involved in sexual
activities that involves theexhibition of their genitalia,
or even if it doesn't even haveto be involved in sex acts or
there can be just nudity.
That kind of material is whatthey call per se contraband.
(10:51):
It's that on the face of it, ifthat's what it has in it.
It's illegal, you can't own it,there's not even a right to
have it in your home.
It's illegal material and aslike a researcher or people
doing research on this area,we're not even allowed to have
it.
And if we see it, we have toreport it immediately.
We can't download it, we can'tsave it.
It's illegal to have.
(11:13):
Period.
Now, material that's depictingadults has to be adjudicated.
It has to be determined Is thisobscene?
Does it meet the standard ofobscenity, or is it something
that has maybe some sort ofredeeming value that we're going
to permit in society?
(11:34):
And there was a famous SupremeCourt decision back in the 70s
called Miller v California,where the Supreme Court
established a three-part test todetermine what kind of material
meets the standard of obscenity.
It's called the lapse test.
But it has to do whether or notthere's any literary value, if
(11:56):
there's any artistic value tothe material.
If the community would considerit offensive, right, Like you
wouldn't sit down and want tolook at this material with your
coworkers or with your familymembers.
There's just something that islike.
Automatically, you know itviolates the community standards
(12:18):
, right?
So there's this three-part testthat determines whether
something is obscene or not.
But the challenge is that Ourprosecutors have to bring
charges of obscenity against thepeople who distribute it.
So we can't just march into astore on the street that's
(12:44):
selling pornography.
You and I can't.
We would have to have a lawenforcement investigation that
would seize materials.
A prosecutor would have tobring a case against the people
who are distributing thismaterial on charges of obscenity
, and then there's a jury trial.
The jury has to decide if thismaterial that they're selling
(13:07):
meets the standard of obscenity,and then the people who are
distributing that content can beput in jail.
And so that was happening.
Back in like the 80s there was aunder the leadership of
President Ronald Reagan.
He established a unit in theDepartment of Justice that was
investigating and prosecutingobscenity cases all across the
(13:30):
country, and so majordistributors of hardcore
pornography were going to jail.
But that time we had we weretalking mostly about like DVD
type stuff.
Because you know, pornographyhas migrated.
It's shifted in terms of theformat in which it's made
available and is most consumedby the public, Whereas in the
(13:50):
past, you know, it was maybestill photos or magazines and it
more, it moved into videoformats and went on to DVDs and
then, of course, with the adventof the internet, it went online
and at first it was just stillgrainy photos that people would
collect and put up on forums andthen, once streaming became
(14:12):
available, it became videos andwith high-speed powered internet
, we got more and more vivid andrealistic material online, and
now we've even got AI-generatedmaterial out there.
So there's been this.
You know, as technologyadvances and changes, the porn
(14:34):
sector is always takingadvantage of those new
developments to develop new waysto deliver pornography to
consumers.
I just want to say about theprosecutions in the 80s and 90s
there was a tremendous amount of.
There were just amazing numberof cases brought against
distributors of pornography.
(14:54):
As I mentioned, they were goingto jail.
This was all done out of theleadership that was coming out
of the Department of Justice,but that has to be a priority of
the Department of Justice inorder to bring these obscenity
cases.
To bring these obscenity cases.
And then you have a change ofadministration.
(15:14):
You have a backing off from.
This was like oh, that's not apriority anymore, we're not
going to do these, or you justget fewer and fewer in number
till there are no obscenityprosecutions anymore, and so
what you have happening is that,right at the time when
pornography was shifting to theonline space, you have a
complete backing off fromprosecutions of obscenity.
(15:35):
So people have this idea thatbecause well, it's on the
Internet, it must be legal.
They have this idea that allthe pornography that's not
involving children that's on theInternet is on the face, it's
just legal.
Face, it's just legal.
(15:55):
So there's this hugemisperception and
misunderstanding about the lawin the United States that has
been fostered by the fact thatthe US Department of Justice has
not brought an obscenityprosecution against online
distributors of pornography inprobably 15 to 20 years now.
I mean, it's been a long timesince we've had a prosecution of
any kind of against for fordistribution of obscenity.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
I mean what you're telling me is it is illegal
really for pornography to be outthere in the public sphere, but
because the Department ofJustice is not prosecuting it,
it's, it's out there.
Is that what?
Speaker 2 (16:32):
you're saying.
Well, what I'm saying is thatit has to be decided by a jury
that the material that would beon a particular website meets
the standard of obscenity.
And if they have met thatthree-part test that was
established by the Supreme Courtin the 1970s which, I would
(16:52):
argue any mainstream pornographysite out there today would be
violating the test, the Millertest.
I don't think there'd be anyproblem of convicting these
online distributors ofpornography of obscenity
(17:13):
distributors of pornography ofobscenity.
So that's a very specific word.
So they're not allowed todistribute obscenity.
Now, perhaps there's somepornography out there that some
community might not considerobscene.
Certainly what's been availableon the mainstream, the most
popular platforms, I think,would reasonable juries would
find obscene.
It wouldn't be a hard bar topass to get over that bar.
(17:37):
What I'm saying is distributionof obscenity, whether it be on
cable television, through the USmails or on the internet.
That's illegal.
Distribution of obscenity isillegal, but the US Department
of Justice has not prosecutedobscenity in a long, long time,
(17:58):
so it looks like it's legal.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Okay, thank you for that history lesson.
That is very valuableinformation.
And Louisiana and all of thesestates that are joining in on
age verification, I mean that'sbeen started in the last couple
years, right, and that hasresurrected.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Right, it's been recent, I'd say within the last
five years.
I can't remember precisely whatyear the Louisiana law was
passed, but it did spark.
It was a watershed moment thatsparked many other states to
jump into this fight, because Ithink people recognize, lots of
people are aware that this is aserious problem, but they just
felt like they didn't know howto move forward and they were
(18:41):
inspired by what?
By what Louisiana did.
And so now there's at least 19states that have age
verification laws in place andthere's many other states that
are moving to do somethingsimilar.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Another thing that I wanted to point out, and I loved
your example of going into abrick and mortar store with an
ID.
I think of an R-rated movie too.
Like an underage person cannotgo into an R-rate in our state
anyway, I think that was a greatexample of going into a brick
and mortar store needing toshare your ID.
So what we're talking abouthere with age verification is,
(19:17):
in order to access apornographic website, a screen
just pops up where you have toverify your identity and you
have to enter your birth date.
Is that correct, like it's assimple as that, or is it?
It's different?
Okay, it would be differentthan that.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Explain that to us Right.
So this is where I think a lotof the fear mongering comes in
by the opponents of ageverification, because they are
alleging that in order to do ageverification, there's going to
be some great big databasethat's collecting your
information and storing it andit's going to know everything
about the people who are goinginto pornography sites online.
(19:54):
But that's not how thetechnology works at all.
So there is an association ofwhat they call the Association
of Age Verification Providers.
It's a big formal associationof many different companies that
provide different forms of ageverification technology and
(20:16):
there's assortment of ways whicha person's age can be
determined by these companiesusing amazing forms of tech.
It's just so incredible what'spossible now.
For instance, there's onecompany that if you hold up your
hand in front of the camera andyou make these I don't know,
it's like three different handmotions.
(20:37):
They can tell how old you areby your hand Just seeing your
hand make these certain motionsand they keep the resolution
grainy so they can't get.
They can't possibly zoom in andget your fingerprints
resolution grainy, so they can'tget.
They can't possibly zoom in andget your fingerprints, but you
just make these three handmotions whammo, they just you're
.
You're over 18 and you can go onto get on to the some mature
(21:00):
site, some site for I don't knowshopping for alcohol or for if
you wanted to gamble orsomething, or obviously, to
pornography sites.
There's other means of doing itas well.
I'm trying to remember.
But what is important here isthat the age verification
providers they do not storepeople's data.
(21:21):
There's not some databasethat's keeping your date of
birth, that's keeping your name.
There's nothing like that.
Some of the providers canactually do it by checking other
information about you that'salready out there in the public
sphere, like whether or not youhave a mortgage.
They can check that way andthen, once it's verified, it's a
(21:45):
one-time thing.
It's not like you're having togo and verify your age every
single time you're trying to geton these sites and it's
relatively inexpensive to do so.
It's just incredible.
And in fact they submitted.
The Age Verification ProvidersAssociation submitted a
fantastic brief to the SupremeCourt in this recent case that
(22:09):
is kind of what is the impetusfor our conversation today which
deals with a law in Texas, anage verification law in Texas.
And so the age verificationprovider submitted this brief to
the court, which is basicallygiving the Supreme Court in this
case background informationthat they need to be aware of in
order to help them make theirdecision when they're
(22:30):
considering what to do.
What was astonishing is thatyou have actually, when you have
engaged in an age verificationprocess online, you are
revealing less about yourselfthan if you were to hand your
driver's license to a grocerystore clerk, because that
grocery store clerk can see youraddress, they can see your
(22:51):
picture, they can see your dateof birth.
It's being flashed out in theair.
Maybe some camera could take apicture of it, who knows?
But, like, there's moreinformation about you that is
publicly accessible in thatmoment at the grocery store
checkout than there is by doingage verification online.
And there's really a hugeamount of standards that they
(23:13):
have that make sure that they'reprotecting people's privacy and
, like I said, it's thisone-time check and it's over,
and they do not they absolutelydo not want to be keeping the
data.
There's not any possibility ofa hack because they're not
storing anything.
There's not any possibility ofa hack because they're not
(23:34):
storing anything.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
So it's incredibly safe technology and this is
where the opponents of ageverification are trying to raise
a whole lot of fear about it,because people have this
misperception that it's creatinga database of information about
people.
Well, I assume this same ageverification like that putting
your hand in front of the camerais being used now on gambling
sites too.
Right, so that's the same.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Yeah, in fact, some pornography sites are already
using age verification and yeah,it's already in use by
companies all across the worldwho are, for various reasons,
need to make sure that theirconsumers are over a certain age
.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
So the argument of that it's collecting and storing
data like it's already outthere, like you're already doing
that through other ageverification sites.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Well, no, what I'm saying is that the age there.
There is publicly accessibledata about people out there that
an age verification company canaccess to say, yes, you're over
18.
But they're not storing thatdata, they don't keep it and
hoard it.
There's information out therethat, like, for instance, we
(24:37):
could go online I could probablyfigure out, mandy, if I knew,
like, where you lived and if Iknew your address, I could
probably find out someinformation about the value of
your home.
I might be able to find out, ifI was good at this, like how
much if you have a mortgage onyour home.
(24:57):
That's what these companies arelooking for Indicia, you know,
indicators that you are an adultby records that are publicly
available out there.
They're not keeping and storingthat information.
That's the point I really wantto make clear here.
They're not collecting andstoring that information.
Yes, that's the point I reallywant to make clear here.
They're not collecting andstoring information.
They're doing this process tosay quickly, ascertain, oh, this
(25:18):
is an adult.
And then they just say click,yeah, you're an adult, and you
move on.
That's it, it's over.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
So one of these largest age verification
companies submitted a brief tothe Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
It's an association, it's like a whole group of them
that has a trade association.
They all agreed and theytogether submitted a brief to
the.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
Supreme Court, okay, saying we're not storing the
data.
This is a normal process.
Okay, right, okay, great.
So I do want to back up, justfor people who may not have
followed this case.
So we've got Louisiana and 19states, including texas, saying
we want age verification forpornography sites.
Texas gets sued over this,right, texas in particular.
Is there a reason that texaswas singled out something
(26:07):
different in our law, or was itjust it was brought here because
I know I'm in texas and I knowif I go to Pornhub right now,
there's a letter that'sbasically saying we are being
sued, we're going to the SupremeCourt.
Like that's what I get, whichis awesome, for you know, I do
work with with young kids beingexposed to porn.
So I'm like that is fantasticthat there's a stop and it just
(26:30):
doesn't pop up when you'researching something.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
You know, I wish I knew why they picked Texas first
.
I don't know why they suedTexas instead of Louisiana or
one of the other states, butthey did choose to sue the state
of Texas.
And so that state that thatcase, which is now currently
worked its way all the way up tothe Supreme Court, is called
(26:53):
FSC v Paxton.
So FSC stands for Free SpeechCoalition.
That is a really fancy name forthe porn industry lobby.
I mean, they're so clever,right?
They're not saying, oh, we'rethe Pornography Association
providers or whatever.
No, they're the Free SpeechCoalition.
(27:14):
So that's how they stylethemselves as protectors of free
speech, when they're reallyjust purveyors of horribly
degrading material that isaddictive and damaging to people
.
But that's how they buildthemselves.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
So this group that is suing Texas, that is kind of
like an association to yespornography.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
So it's not just Pornhub but it's other companies
right, there's several otherlargest company involved, but
they're yeah, they're involved,but the I'm not sure all the
entities that are a part of theFSC, the Free Speech Coalition.
But it is a pornographyassociation trade association,
(28:03):
just like the Age VerificationProviders Association.
They're an association of mostof the major players in that
industry.
The Free Speech Coalition isbasically the mouthpiece of the
(28:40):
porn industry.
It's a spokesman.
It's advocating to regulatepornography and children's
accessibility to it.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
The FSC is often involved in those cases.
Well, and in just a practicallevel, having conversations with
our kids at home about the freespeech component, I know one
thing that I say and I don'tknow if it's accurate.
You may want to speak into this, but I always say to my kids
like free speech, like I'm notsaying they can't have the site,
I'm saying it shouldn't beaccessible to minors.
To me that's a huge differencethan banning all porn, and I
(29:04):
mean I would be for banning allporn.
But I understand the freespeech argument a little bit
there.
What do you think?
What would you say to that?
Because that's just aconversation we've had in our
home about this issue and aboutpornography being labeled like a
free speech issue.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
If pornography is speech.
What kind of speech is it?
What is it saying?
What is it communicating?
Would you have this speech inpublic, with your friends, with
your family?
It's so indecent, it's sodebasing of those involved and
(29:40):
it's mostly it's terriblydebasing of women.
I don't consider it speech, butif I did consider it speech, I
would consider it hate speech.
It's a form of hate.
It's a degrading of the idea offree speech.
To me, like you're saying, likefree speech is an ideal in our
(30:02):
country, it's this lofty thingwhere we're able to articulate
great ideas or or disagree overbig ideas.
But pornography is so debasingto those, to everybody involved
in it and in creating it, andit's sending these absolutely
(30:24):
horrific messages about humansand human sexuality and how,
what, what sex is about, andit's just terrible.
So I guess I would probablycome up with something along
those lines.
It's been a while since I'vetalked about that, so I need to
brush up on it.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
No, I think that's a great conversation starter,
especially with our olderteenagers, who may understand a
little bit more about howdetrimental it is.
You know, and from our work,like in our nonprofit world
we've we see that pornographyfuels abuse, like like I mean
100% of the families we'vehelped, where a kid has abused
(30:59):
another kid sexually,pornography is always involved,
like porn is the perpetratorhere, and so you know it fuels
abuse, it fuels trafficking, itfuels the demand for trafficking
.
There's so many arguments thatcan be made that it could be
hate speech and I love that howyou said that, I think that's
very good and speech and I lovethat how you said that.
I think that's very good and agood conversation starter in our
(31:20):
homes with our kids.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
There's been research that looks at the titles of
pornography films on themainstream sites and they were
assessing it for themes ofsexual abuse and violence, right
so that there's a study thatcame out of the UK and they
found like really high incidenceof titles indicating abuse on
the home pages just the homepages, the titles that they were
(31:43):
looking at.
So the people who would land onthe home page particularly if
you're a kid, like immediatelyyou're getting socialized to
these ideas that are involvesexual violence and abuse or
exploitation just by visiting ahomepage of a pornography site.
What I was astounded byrecently was just how much
(32:04):
there's been a growth in thenormalization, say, for instance
, of incest in steprelationships.
Okay, so one of the biggestpurveyors of pornography will
say, oh well, we don't have, wedon't permit anything that's
incest.
But you go on their website andthe titles is step this step,
(32:27):
this step, this step.
Dad, step sister, mom.
You know everybody in these,it's in these incestuous step
relationships.
So they don't consider a steprelationship relationship a
family relationship.
And I just think this isegregious, because how many of
us know somebody who was abusedas a stepchild, right Over and
(32:48):
over and over the cases of abusethat are perpetrated against
children.
It's so many of the times it'sa step relative.
I don't think anybody who worksin sexual abuse and
exploitation would deny thatabuse of children is a huge
problem within step families.
And now you have these websitesthat normalize this on a massive
(33:11):
scale and, in fact, interesting.
I was just reading a studyyesterday and this came out in
2014.
It was looking at tags.
Basically, when people uploadcontent to pornography sites,
they give it terms that enablepeople to search to try to find
what they're looking for.
It's like shopping you want tofind what you want to consume
(33:34):
more easily.
So there's literally thousandsof terms that people will use to
describe the pornography thatthey're uploading.
One of the most common termswere mother, sister, brother,
father.
This was like more than 10years ago.
(33:54):
Those were the most common,some of the most common search
terms that they the tags thatthey found on the content that
was being uploaded to some ofthese, to two sites in
particular.
So my point is that there'sjust this speech that is on
these sites fuels abuse.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
That's kind of on a side note on how to talk to our
kids about this free speechargument.
But the Supreme Court we're notsaying your porn sites have to
come down.
The Supreme Court and the Texaslaw.
The debate is the ageverification.
We're not trying to get itlabeled hate speech.
We're not trying to get ittaken down.
We're simply saying you knowTexas is saying we want age
(34:39):
verification and the lobbyistsfor the porn industry have come
in and said no, this is againstour free speech Right.
So this is now at the SupremeCourt and they have heard the
case correctly.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Yes, they had oral arguments in January.
So you had the state of Texaspresenting their arguments, you
had the porn industry presentingtheir arguments.
It was pretty encouragingbecause the justices did come
down pretty hard on the pornindustry representative.
The guy who was arguing ontheir behalf.
There was a lot of really hardquestions for him.
The guy who was arguing ontheir behalf.
(35:14):
There was a lot of really hardquestions for him.
So we're optimistic that therewill be a favorable decision.
But it's hard to say.
It's like trying to read tealeaves.
We feel cautiously optimistic,I would say.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
Do we know when we expect a decision from the
Supreme Court?
Any time estimate?
Speaker 2 (35:35):
Well, it could be any time between now and the end of
June.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
Say that the age verification is upheld.
That's what we want.
We want it to be upheld inTexas, so I assume if that
happens, then the other statesthere may even be more joining
in because of this Supreme Courtdecision.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (35:57):
I would think so.
And then my other question iscould that possibly lead to a
federal age verification law atsome point, or what do?
Speaker 2 (36:08):
you think.
I do think that if the SupremeCourt were to uphold the lower
court's decision, the FifthCircuit's decision in FSC v
Paxton, that that would be areally positive signal for other
states to join in in passingsome sort of age verification
law.
So I would say that it woulddefinitely be a very strong
(36:30):
motivator for states that maybehave been waiting on the
sidelines, concerned that why gothrough this effort if it might
get struck down?
If the Supreme Court upholdsthe Fifth Circuit decision or
upholds it but still tells theFifth Circuit they need to do a
little tweaking, that is a verypositive sign for us and for
(36:51):
states who would like to join indoing something on this.
So I think this seems like it'spretty much in the state's
hands right now.
Speaker 1 (36:59):
Okay, well, thank you so much for that breakdown.
You gave us a lot of historythat we didn't even know.
You know went back decades ofhistory on this, which was great
.
You know you laid out for usexactly what is at stake here
with this Supreme Court decision.
Is there anything else that youwant to add?
Our listeners are all parents,so if there's anything else you
(37:22):
want to add to them, as they'regetting more educated about
what's happening and being ableto talk at home about the
Supreme Court case, Well, onething I should go back to
address is the issue of federalmatters on this.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
So there are different pieces of legislation
that are being proposed inCongress that are intended to
help prevent childhood exposureto pornography various bills.
One of them in particular iscalled COSA, the Child Online
Safety Act, which is somethingthat the National Center on
Sexual Exploitation has beenvery supportive of.
(37:57):
So I don't want to suggest thatwe can only deal with this at
the state level, but so far youknow, the age verification has
definitely been a state's ledfront.
You know move part of themovement, but there are various
federal pieces that oflegislation that are hopefully
will pass this year.
Cosa died at the very lastminute last year.
(38:19):
People were heartbroken becauseit would have been the first big
piece of child protectionlegislation on the internet in
two decades.
We can't bury our heads in thesand.
We can't hope that this won'thappen to your child.
You basically have to assumethat it will.
This won't happen to your child.
You basically have to assumethat it will and you want to be
(38:40):
as proactive as possible aboutgiving them the skills to help
handle that, navigate thatsituation when it happens and to
make sure that you are theperson that they know they can
come talk to, that you are theirsafe person, that when
something, when they seesomething that they're troubled
about or they see pornography,that they know they can come
(39:02):
talk to you.
And not I'm sure it's hardbecause you, the instinct would
be to have that panic moment andto be all reactive and upset.
You know, to let our upset comethrough, because we don't.
We're just heartbroken whenthis happens.
Right, because it's adisruption, it's an irreversible
(39:24):
disruption to their childhoodand their innocence.
But we have to maintain ourcomposure and then deal with our
emotions elsewhere so thatwe're not making creating fear
in our children when thishappens, but just creating that,
that open door where they cancome to you and be you.
You're that person they cancome to about these issues.
(39:44):
But definitely, definitely,definitely being proactive and
doing everything we can to delaythat moment.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
Absolutely.
We call that.
Avoid crazy parent mode at NextTalk.
That's what we call that, andI've been in crazy parent mode a
lot and had to go back andapologize.
And what's really cool aboutthat is going back to apologize
is beautiful, because I can sayI wasn't mad at you, you brought
that to me, you did everythingright.
I'm mad that you're growing upin a world that that's available
(40:13):
on your computer.
It shouldn't be explaining tothem why I was upset, but not
mad at them and and creatingthat safe space.
I mean, it's just so soimportant.
Lisa, thank you for being withus, thank you for that history
lesson and bringing us up tospeed, and we're going to be
waiting for the Supreme Courtdecision on this.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
Great Well, we'll hope everybody will be, you know
, keeping this in their thoughts.
If they're praying, people prayabout it.
It's a big moment.
It could be a major watershedand a big shift in how our
country has been dealing withthis issue, and it would be a
huge step forward for childprotection in our country if the
(40:53):
Supreme Court upholds the Texaslaw.
Speaker 1 (40:56):
Absolutely.
Thank you for all you do atNicosi and all of your team.
We really appreciate your work,thank you Great being with you.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
Thank you, too, for what you do.
Speaker 3 (41:05):
Next Talk is a 501c3 nonprofit keeping kids safe
online.
To support our work, make adonation at nexttalkorg.
Next Talk resources are notintended to replace the advice
of a trained healthcare or legalprofessional, or to diagnose,
treat or otherwise render expertadvice regarding any type of
medical, psychological, legal,financial or other problem.
You are advised to consult aqualified expert for your
(41:25):
personal treatment plan.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.