The War on Porn Regular Updates about the Assault on The Adult Industry

DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the state’s age verification legislation into law on Monday, approving a measure aimed specifically at pornography websites along with a number of other bills passed during the legislative session that concluded May 3.

The Iowa Senate had previously voted unanimously to approve a revised version of House File 864, legislation directed at websites and platforms that contain specified amounts of content deemed “harmful to minors.”

House File 864 is now law as “an act requiring persons who operate certain internet sites, applications, or a segment of an internet site or application that contains material pornographic for minors to perform reasonable age verification.”

The law grants enforcement authority to the Iowa Attorney General’s Office, led by Attorney General Brenna Bird. Under the measure, websites and platforms covered by the law may face penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation.

“The attorney general may bring a civil action to provide for civil penalties in an amount not more than $100,000” if a platform fails to comply with a court injunction, according to the legislation.

As with similar age verification laws enacted in other states, operators of online pornography platforms may use third-party providers to conduct what the law describes as reasonable age verification. Those providers are prohibited from retaining information collected through the verification process, although they must provide relevant data if ordered to do so by a state court.

BRASILIA, Brazil — Brazil’s National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) on Monday launched a new online portal that allows citizens to report potential violations of the country’s Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents, known as the Digital ECA, which requires adult websites to verify the age of users accessing content from within Brazil.

In a statement announcing the initiative, the agency said it will review all submitted complaints to identify companies and online platforms that may not be complying with the requirements of the Digital ECA.

Among the issues identified on the reporting portal as falling under ANPD oversight are the “absence or deficiency of age verification/checking mechanisms on platforms” and the “lack of adequate security mechanisms to prevent/mitigate access to inappropriate, unsuitable, or prohibited content.”

ANPD Superintendent of Inspection Fabrício Guimarães said that while the agency will not provide individual responses to every complaint, the information received will help determine whether a formal investigation into a specific company is warranted.

The Digital ECA requires adult content providers to implement age verification measures that go beyond simple self-declaration and applies regardless of where a website operator is located. ANPD has also outlined a phased approach to compliance oversight as enforcement efforts expand. The first phase, which is currently underway, includes public consultations aimed at broadening and refining compliance guidelines.

WARSAW, Poland — Poland’s Council of Ministers on Tuesday approved a proposed nationwide measure that would require websites and online platforms to verify users’ ages in an effort to prevent minors from accessing adult content online.

Deputy Minister of Digital Affairs Michał Gramatyka described the proposed Act on the Protection of Minors Against Access to Pornographic Content as “crucial.”

“Websites containing such content are currently not effectively protected against access, often accidental, by minors,” Gramatyka said.

According to a statement from the Ministry of Digital Affairs, the legislation “does not impose specific technical solutions on providers, but rather specifies which age verification mechanisms are recommended.”

The ministry is promoting the use of the European Digital Identity Wallet as part of the implementation of new age verification requirements, Deputy Minister of Digital Affairs Dariusz Standerski said.

“We plan to launch secure and anonymous age verification by the end of 2026,” Standerski said.

If enacted, the legislation would require telecommunications providers to block access to websites that do not comply with age verification rules. Companies that fail to meet the requirements could also face financial penalties.

The proposal must still be considered by Poland’s parliament and receive approval from President Karol Nawrocki, who earlier this year vetoed legislation that would have implemented the European Union’s Digital Services Act, including provisions related to age verification.

Poland has fallen behind several other European Union member states in implementing Digital Services Act requirements and could face action from the European Commission for failing to enforce the regulations.

KYIV — Ukraine’s parliament failed to approve a proposed measure that would have decriminalized pornography across the country.

Since gaining independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has maintained laws prohibiting pornography and obscenity, even as the nation’s adult-content industry has continued to expand.

“It’s very unfortunate,” said Ruslan Stefanchuk, chair of the Rada, according to the Ukrainian News Agency. “I would have liked to see real liberalization, but apparently the Soviet mindset is still firmly entrenched.”

Member of Parliament Yaroslav Zheleznyak spearheaded the effort to repeal the country’s longstanding Soviet-era restrictions on pornography. The law is “nothing short of stupidity,” Zheleznyak told Kyiv Post journalist Kateryna Zakharchenko in an August 2023 interview. The bill ultimately received 207 votes, falling short of the 226 needed for approval.

Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs said it had no objections to the wording of the legislation. Despite that position, supporters of the measure were unable to secure enough votes for it to pass.

The failed vote comes as Ukraine’s Security Service and other law enforcement agencies continue investigating an alleged corruption scheme involving regional police officials. Authorities say the officials accepted bribes in exchange for ignoring illegal pornography production operations and adult-content creators operating in several parts of the country.

U.K. regulator Ofcom has fined adult site operator Youngtek Solutions a total of 600,000 pounds, or more than $800,000, after determining the company failed to meet age-verification and information request requirements under the Online Safety Act.

In a statement released Wednesday, Ofcom said Youngtek did not comply with its Online Safety Act age-verification obligations from July 25, 2025, through Sept. 22, 2025.

The regulator launched its investigation in September 2025 in connection with several sites operated by Youngtek. A provisional ruling in the matter was issued in February.

Ofcom has now confirmed that ruling, issuing a 500,000-pound penalty for failing to implement age checks and another 100,000 pounds for “ignoring legally binding information requests.” The enforcement action covers the sites empflix.com, imagefap.com, moviefap.com and TNAflix.com.

According to the statement, the company has since added age-assurance measures across all of the sites involved in the investigation.

“We will continue to monitor these sites to ensure that their age checking methods are highly effective at preventing children from accessing pornographic content,” the statement reads.

The regulator also stated that it can pursue recovery action if penalties are not paid.

“Where appropriate, we can also seek a court order for ‘business disruption measures,’ such as requiring payment providers or advertisers to withdraw their services from a platform, or requiring Internet Service Providers to block a site in the U.K.,” the statement reads.

In the first article in this Origins series, we looked at the role of the Comstock Act in the American anti-porn effort. Today, we consider “Operation Yorkville,” the socially conservative activist group that later changed its named to “Morality in Media” and finally the “National Center on Sexual Exploitation,” the group’s current moniker.

Established in New York back in 1962, Operation Yorkville was the brainchild of three New York-area clergymen who worried about the deleterious effect of pornography and magazines the group had determined to be “salacious.” 

The group was initially fronted by Father Morton A. Hill, who was appointed to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “President’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography” in 1969, shortly after Operation Yorkville renamed itself “Morality in Media.”

The appointment and opportunity to chime in on obscenity policy at the highest level didn’t dull Hill’s censorial zeal one bit. In fact, Hill eventually became convinced the commission was packed with people who supported loosening obscenity laws, a view that was vindicated somewhat when the Commission issued a report recommending the repeal of “adult” obscenity laws.

Incensed, Hill crafted and published the “Hill-Link Minority Report,” which was developed in concert with Dr. Winfrey C. Link, another member of the clergy who sat on the commission, as well as Charles Keating, a truly lovely character who will likely rear his head again in a future post in this series.

While ostensibly dedicated to fighting pornography, Morality in Media certainly didn’t limit their efforts to the realm of porn. Among their other quixotic efforts was encouraging the Federal Communications Commission to bring the hammer down on the Pacifica Foundation in the “Seven Dirty Words” kerfuffle surrounding a radio broadcast of the famous (and fucking hilarious) George Carlin standup comedy bit.

Morality in Media also took aim at the Monty Python film Life of Brian, asserting that the movie was a “direct, aggressive, deliberate violation of the rights of believing persons.” How on earth a satirical comedy could violate someone’s rights is beyond me – and appeared to be beyond any prosecutors at the time, as well, since the only thing that came of Morality in Media’s campaign was an increase in the number of theaters screening Life of Brian. (A more delicious slice of irony is difficult to find, IMO.)

It’s probably fair to say Morality in Media reached its zenith of political influence in the 1980s, when the group found it had a particularly receptive ear from the Reagan Administration. In 1983, Hill led a group of anti-porn crusaders who met with Reagan at the White House. Hill and company recommended that Reagan appoint an “anti-pornography czar” to lead the federal crackdown on porn. A White House Working Group on Pornography was formed in June of that year, and in December, Reagan called for U.S. Attorneys around the country to begin more strictly enforcing federal obscenity law.

Through both terms of the Reagan Administration and George H.W. Bush’s single term in office, obscenity prosecutions took place at a fast clip and the group once known as Operation Yorkville appeared to have gained a foothold in its decency crusade. The group’s influence waned during the two terms Bill Clinton was in office, however, a fact that aided the rise of the online adult industry considerably, at least on American soil.

The group is still very active today under its National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) moniker, celebrating each perceived victory. Of course, the modern NCOSE goes to great lengths to couch its efforts in terms of stamping out “sexual exploitation,” but make no mistake, the core of the group’s mission is still best captured by their second name, Morality in Media. Far from distancing themselves from their organization’s censorial roots, NCOSE celebrates those roots, albeit in terms that fit better with their current brand.

What’s next for the group once known as Operation Yorkville? One glance at their website yields an answer: They are going after “mainstream contributors to sexual exploitation,” a list that includes the likes of Amazon, Android, Apple, Alphabet (Google) – and we haven’t even advanced past the letter A yet.

One thing of which we can be sure: So long as a War on Porn is there to be fought, Operation Yorkville/Morality in Media/National Center on Sexual Exploitation will be there, fighting for “decency” – as they define the term, naturally.

The only real question is what they’ll be calling themselves when they unfurl their sigil.

BRASILIA, Brazil — Brazil’s National Data Protection Authority, known as the ANPD, on Friday opened a public consultation focused on age verification systems under the country’s Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents, or Digital ECA. The law requires adult websites to verify the ages of users located in Brazil, and regulators are now moving deeper into the details of how that process could work in practice. It’s the kind of policy rollout that sounds technical on paper, but behind the scenes, it touches everything from privacy concerns to platform compliance.

According to a statement released by the ANPD, the consultation began Friday and will continue through July 9. The process is intended to update the agency’s preliminary guidelines on age verification, which were first published in March. Regulators appear to be refining the framework as feedback continues to come in from companies, legal experts and members of the public.

ANPD Superintendent of Regulation Lucas Borges de Carvalho said, “The Age Verification Guide is an important milestone for the implementation of the Digital ECA. The guidelines presented to society in this consultation seek to establish the regulatory conditions for guaranteeing the rights of children and adolescents in the digital environment and to provide greater predictability and legal certainty in the implementation of the new rules.”

Earlier this year, the ANPD also sought public comment on the broader interpretation and application of the Digital ECA. That consultation, which remains ongoing until June 15, is aimed at clarifying how the law applies to suppliers of information technology products and services, including providers of adult content. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva signed the legislation into law in March, setting the stage for a new regulatory framework that reaches well beyond Brazil’s borders.

The law requires providers of adult content to use age verification measures that go beyond simple self-declaration, and it applies regardless of where a website operator is based. Alongside the preliminary guidance on implementation, the ANPD has also outlined a phased compliance strategy as enforcement expands. Stage 1, which is currently underway, includes the public consultation process now taking place.

According to the ANPD, the final version of the age verification guide will build on the preliminary recommendations and address “the digital chain of responsibilities and specific requirements for the use of technical solutions such as facial recognition and document verification.” Those technologies have increasingly become part of the global conversation around online age checks — useful to some, concerning to others, and complicated for nearly everyone involved.

Individuals who want to submit comments, questions or suggestions through the consultation portal may still do so during the review period. Non-Brazilian participants using the system are required to provide passport information as part of the submission process.

Adult Attorney Corey Silverstein wrote a piece on XBIZ.com about Alabama’s adult content laws.

Here is a summary of the article:

Alabama has emerged as one of the most restrictive states for the adult entertainment industry following the passage of House Bill 164 and related enforcement measures. The state has imposed a layered regulatory system that includes a 10% tax on adult-content revenue, strict age verification mandates and notarized performer consent requirements. Critics within the industry argue that these laws go beyond ordinary regulation and instead create an environment so burdensome that companies and creators are effectively pushed out of the state. The article argues that the combined effect of these policies raises serious constitutional concerns, particularly involving the First Amendment and the protection of lawful adult expression.

A central focus of the law is the 10% tax placed on gross revenue tied to adult content. Unlike neutral sales taxes, this levy specifically targets material classified as “harmful to minors,” applying to subscriptions, memberships and other monetized adult services. The article notes that this content-based taxation may violate constitutional protections because it singles out protected speech for special financial penalties. The statute also creates confusion over how the tax applies across state lines, particularly when performers, platforms and subscribers are located in different jurisdictions. Because the law provides little clarity, many companies reportedly view compliance as too risky and have chosen to stop operating in Alabama altogether.

The article also highlights Alabama’s aggressive age verification requirements, which compel adult websites to use methods such as government-issued identification, biometric verification or third-party authentication systems to confirm users are over 18. While intended to prevent minors from accessing adult content, these requirements raise privacy concerns for both users and platforms. Companies face legal exposure if verification systems fail, even unintentionally, while users may be reluctant to provide sensitive personal information online. On top of these obligations, Alabama now requires performer consent documents to be notarized, adding another administrative burden that particularly affects independent creators and international performers. The article describes this requirement as an unusually formal and costly compliance hurdle.

The piece concludes that Alabama’s laws collectively function less as ordinary regulation and more as a system designed to suppress the adult industry altogether. It points to public comments from Alabama State Representative Ben Robbins celebrating the withdrawal of major adult platforms from the state as evidence that lawmakers may be seeking to eliminate access to adult content rather than simply protect minors. According to the article, these measures could face constitutional challenges involving the First Amendment, the Dormant Commerce Clause and privacy protections. Whether courts ultimately uphold or strike down the laws may shape how other states pursue similar regulations in the future.

The entire article is here.

A little over a month ago, I wrote an article about “the shot not yet fired” in the War on Porn, referencing a pledge then-presidential candidate Donald Trump signed back in 2016, averring to “uphold the rule of law by aggressively enforcing existing federal laws…including the federal obscenity laws.”

The gist of my piece was that while, 10 years later, Trump has shown no signs of fulfilling the terms of his pledge, the notion of doing so might make a sudden return, driven in part by a desire to improve his flagging poll numbers and shore up his support among evangelical Christian voters. After all, some of these voters have been wavering a bit in their unquestioning Trump fealty, particularly in the aftermath of Trump posting an image in which he appeared to equate himself with Christ.

Earlier this week, as you might have read, it was reported that Indiana Sen. Jim Banks penned a letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche imploring Blanche to ratchet up enforcement of federal obscenity laws.

Noting that he had written a similar letter seven years ago, Blanche asserted that in the interim, “online obscenity has proliferated – and been democratized.”

“It is neither healthy nor safe for sexual content to be so pervasive,” Blanche wrote, presumably clutching his pearls in one hand, a copy of a Playboy magazine with Donald Trump gracing the cover in his other, while typing with his nose. “A wide and intellectually diverse coalition has long warned that pornography carries consequences for children, adults, and communities. Pornography damages the mental and relational well-being of those who consume it and exploits those who participate in creating it.”

“You can stop this,” Blanche asserted. “Obscenity has long been proscribed in the common law tradition and is not protected by the First Amendment. Federal law prohibits the distribution of obscene material, including over the internet. It is a crime to create and disseminate child pornography, as well as content that is obscene for adults. It is also a crime to knowingly display obscene content for children and to mislead minors into viewing adult content or adults into viewing generally obscene content.”

The paragraph above is technically true, so far as it goes, but as those who deplore sexually explicit expression consistently do, Banks conflates illegal “obscenity” – a legal status the state must establish at trial, on a case-by-case basis – with “pornography,” a far broader category that presumably enjoys the protection of the First Amendment.

As the existence of his previous letter to the first Trump Administration demonstrates, Banks banging on this drum doesn’t necessarily mean the Department of Justice will start dancing to that rhythm.  But, with Trump’s approval rating currently circling the toilet bowl, he might decide that dispatching a team of Decency Warriors to federal court would be a good way to gin up some enthusiasm among social conservatives in his base. Of course, in so doing, he might lose some of the ‘angry young man’ types who backed him in the 2024 election, seeing as how young men (angry and otherwise) are well-represented in porn’s fan base, too.

So, will Banks’ letter move the needle and inspire a new round of federal obscenity prosecutions? It’s hard to say, naturally. But referencing the fact the Obscenity Task Force was shut down under the Obama Administration probably helps his cause. After all, Trump seems to be on a mission to undo everything done under his Democratic predecessors (and many of his Republican predecessors, too), so that might just be the carrot that leads the big orange horse to water.

As Trump himself is quite fond of saying, we’ll see what happens.

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge in California ruled Tuesday that Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub.com, must continue defending claims brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, or CIPA, in a case centered on online tracking technologies and user data collection.

The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Wesley Hsu of the Central District of California, stems from a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that Aylo used digital marketing tools that collected information tied to users’ pornography viewing habits, raising claims of privacy violations under California law.

Plaintiffs Scott Adair, Kent Henderson and Tarris Wallace filed suit against Aylo and several affiliated companies, including its Ireland-based entity, during the summer of 2025. The case was initially filed in Los Angeles Superior Court before Aylo transferred it to federal court in the Central District of California.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, the adult entertainment industry was alerted by the Free Speech Coalition to a growing number of legal complaints targeting adult platforms over the use of standard online marketing and analytics technologies. In this case, the plaintiffs argue that Aylo violated its own terms of service through the use of what the complaint describes as “third-party tracking technologies” on the Pornhub website.

The technologies referenced in the suit are widely used across digital publishing and advertising. They include Google Analytics as well as internal tracking systems developed by Aylo to collect user experience data and generate content recommendations.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Aylo defendants:

…“intercept[ed], read and analyz[ed] a range of highly sensitive and identifying information, including (1) specific video titles a user has selected and played; (2) any sexual orientation categories navigated (e.g., transgender, gay, bisexual); (3) explicit and detailed scene-specific attributes of the videos (such as the presence of named pornographic performers, the production type like ‘amateur,’ ‘homemade’ or ‘doggy style,’ or whether the video was made in a specific country such as ‘Japan’); (4) any search terms entered by the user into the Pornhub Website search bar, including even sensitive queries like ‘Asian teen girl’ or ‘young black teens’; and (5) details about products viewed or purchased on the Website’s online shop, including item categories, names, and price.”

The plaintiffs argue that users may have been exposed simply by visiting the site. In a minutes order issued Tuesday, Hsu stated that no federal class action has yet been certified, but said the federal court remains the proper venue for the litigation.

“As to the reasonable expectation of privacy, [the] plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that users would reasonably expect [the] defendants not to track their highly sensitive private information related to Plaintiffs’ pornography viewing habits,” Hsu wrote. “Plaintiffs have also plausibly alleged that users would not expect Defendants to use that highly sensitive private information to build detailed profiles pertaining to users.”

The judge added, “Additionally, [the] plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the alleged data collection plausibly defies social norms. … Plaintiffs have alleged that they did not consent to the alleged data collection. Without this consent, it is reasonable to infer [that the] Plaintiffs were unaware [and that] defendants were collecting data pertaining to Plaintiffs’ highly sensitive pornographic search terms and purchases.”

Under California’s privacy law, violations can involve intentionally recording or monitoring confidential communications without the consent of all parties involved. The statute also addresses the use of software or devices that intercept or track communications, including website interactions, without legally required disclosure or permission.

The plaintiffs contend that users were not sufficiently informed that their data could be tracked through marketing technologies such as Google Analytics. Under CIPA, alleged violations can carry financial penalties if proven in court.