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

Over on WIRED right now, there’s an article about the unexpected role adult content creators are playing in identifying potential security breaches on government (.gov) and university (.edu) websites.

To make a long (and well worth reading) story short, phishers, scammers and other folks of their distasteful ilk have been downloading content from these adult creators, uploading it to .gov and .edu sites they’ve compromised (or otherwise have access to) and using it as clickbait to draw people in to click malicious links, download malware or otherwise expose themselves to risk of becoming a cybercrime victim.

Since many adult content creators use DMCA takedown services, or sent out takedown notices themselves, by reporting links to Google for removal, these creators have unwittingly contributed to the cyber security of both the sites themselves and users who might stumble across the links in Google’s search results.

Near the end of the article, content creator Laura Lux is asked what she made of the DMCA notices potentially notifying site administrators they’ve had a breach. Her response? “I guess sex workers save the world again.”

The story got me thinking about adult content piracy and a different kind of possibly unwitting role being played, this one related to the War on Porn.

I suspect a lot of people who download and “share” the pictures and videos made by adult content creators don’t think of what they’re doing as harmful. Those of them who aren’t trying to make a buck off the content in some way might even believe they’re doing the creators a service, promoting them via ‘word of mouth,’ in effect.

But when you download and distribute content that was made to be sold, you’re not only devaluing the product and undermining the creator’s business model. You’re often also encouraging the perception that adult content is being distributed without thought of complying with the law by the creators themselves, even though your distribution of the content is something they actively don’t want to occur.

Redistributing content without the consent of the rightsholders is bad enough, but pirated adult content is often uploaded to platforms that make no pretense of following any law or complying with any regulation. Platforms that turn a willfully blind eye to regulations then stoke the ire of people like legislators, anti-porn activists and self-righteous TV bloviators, who inevitably tar the entire adult industry with the brush of criminality. (They also sometimes inspire attorneys general to take unusual actions in court, but that’s another story.)

It’s worth remembering that outside of the people who make, sell, distribute or otherwise profit from porn, we don’t enjoy much support in the public sphere. It’s undoubtedly true a hefty percentage of voters enjoy watching porn. But for a variety of reasons, mostly tied up in shame and/or a desire to keep certain aspects of our lives private, we’re probably not going to see big pro-porn rallies in the streets at times when some overreaching new law targeting the adult industry is being debated.

Given that, this is my simple appeal to those outside the adult industry, but who are on “our side” when it comes to the War on Porn: If you can’t openly support us, please at least consider not fighting against us, accidentally or otherwise.

The guidelines here are quite simple, really. Pay for porn when its creators intend for it to be sold and buy it on the platforms its creators have authorized to distribute their work. Don’t ‘share’ their content with tens of millions of ‘friends.’ When you get opportunities to interact with adult content creators, be respectful. If you feel shame because you watch porn, don’t take that shame out on those who make it by denouncing us as whores and panderers; just hire a fucking therapist already and sort yourself out!

And for fuck’s sake, don’t go around hacking university or government websites and uploading porn to them. That’s not just working against “our side;” that’s declaring that the only side you’re on is one that should be in prison.

Nine people connected to a pornography business are set to stand trial in the Czech Republic on human trafficking charges after prosecutors alleged they lured young women with promises of modeling work before coercing them into appearing in pornographic films.

The defendants have denied the allegations. Their defense is expected to argue that the women voluntarily agreed to participate in the productions and signed contracts that clearly outlined the nature of the videos.

According to investigators, the group promoted modeling opportunities for women over the age of 18 between 2016 and 2019, but authorities claim the advertisements concealed the true purpose of the recruitment.

“Detectives concluded that these offers were no more than a veil for the production and subsequent distribution of pornographic films,” the Czech organized crime unit (NCOZ) said.

Authorities said many of the women experienced lasting consequences after taking part in the productions.

“Many manifested psychological and health problems and had to seek medical aid including long-term treatment,” the NCOZ said, adding that investigators believe hundreds of women may have been affected.

The case brought by the State Prosecutors’ Bureau centers on 18 women identified as victims. Prosecutor’s office spokesman Aleš Cimbala said prosecutors will argue that those behind the operation subjected the women to increasing pressure throughout the recruitment process.

“At casting, the organizers created the impression of a rush or played down the importance of the agreements signed” in order to secure the women’s consent, he said.

The indictment spans 629 pages.

Prague has long been recognized as a hub for the adult entertainment industry. Following the 1989 Velvet Revolution, which brought an end to communist rule in former Czechoslovakia, looser censorship rules and the country’s shift to a market economy attracted pornography producers to the region.

If convicted, the defendants could face prison sentences of up to 12 years, according to Prague city prosecutors.

“The accused include people organizing the Czech Casting project, as well as people ensuring finances, casting production and agreements,” Cimbala said.

He added that photographers, camera operators and actors are also among those facing charges.

BRUSSELS — A civil society organization working across the European Union and internationally has released a report alleging that the three largest pornography platforms operating within the EU are not fully meeting the compliance standards required under the Digital Services Act (DSA) for so-called very large online platforms (VLOPs).

The Digital Intimacy Coalition (DIC) completed its study in April 2026 but did not publicly release its findings until July 6. The report examines three platforms: Aylo-owned Pornhub.com, Technius-owned Stripchat.com, and WebGroup Czech Republic-owned XVideos.com.

All three websites have been designated as VLOPs by the European Commission under the DSA. That designation gives the Commission authority to subject adult entertainment platforms, along with major social networks, to heightened regulatory oversight focused on online safety and compliance throughout the European Union.

Traditionally, VLOPs are defined as online platforms with more than 45 million users across the EU’s 27 member states.

Although the platforms have argued that they serve fewer than 45 million users within the European Union, the Commission has continued to classify sites such as Stripchat and Pornhub as VLOPs. Critics have questioned whether the current definition of a VLOP is appropriate, arguing that the criteria remain open to interpretation. Under the DSA, however, platforms carrying the designation are required to satisfy a number of compliance obligations each year.

According to the Digital Intimacy Coalition, its review identified areas where the three platforms are not fulfilling their “legal obligations to meaningfully assess platform risk,” as outlined in the report.

DIC described its publication as “the first in-depth independent analysis of the legally mandated risk assessments … examined through a sex-positive lens that treats gender-based violence and the over-moderation of consensual content as equally serious violations of fundamental rights.”

“Zero platforms recognise sexual autonomy as a fundamental right. Not one platform’s methodology was found to be documented or reproducible,” DIC added. Carlotta Rigotti, head of DIC’s Risk Assessment Analysis Taskforce, said, “These risk assessments were supposed to be a transparency tool. Instead, they read like reputation management.

“Severity ratings are unsubstantiated, AI-generated content is ignored entirely, and not one platform grapples with the real tension at the heart of this industry: how to protect against gender-based violence without erasing the right to sexual autonomy,” Rigotti continued.

Ana Ornelas, the coalition’s advocacy officer, added, “What is missing from these assessments is just as telling as what is in them.

“We do not have data on moderator welfare, disclosure of civil society partnerships, or engagement with platform architecture or recommender systems, despite that being an explicit legal requirement. Regulators and the public deserve better than this,” Ornelas said. The report also identifies four structural weaknesses that it says appear across all three platforms in relation to the legal requirements for reporting risk assessments. According to the analysis, the assessment methodologies are “opaque” and “non-reproducible.”

The report also states that the platforms rely on a narrow definition of gender-based violence, focusing primarily on the removal of non-consensual image sharing. It further argues that platform policies appear to be driven more by reputational concerns than user safety, while claiming that mitigation measures are often insufficient and that statements regarding their effectiveness are not adequately supported.

The platforms did not provide comments addressing the specific findings outlined in the Digital Intimacy Coalition’s report. An Aylo spokesperson said the company’s latest risk assessment, completed in April, is expected to be published later this month. According to the spokesperson, that report “covers many of the areas addressed in the analysis.”

SAN FRANCISCO — A three-judge panel on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has revived a lawsuit brought by two anonymous plaintiffs against Fenix International Limited, the parent company of OnlyFans.com, over alleged violations of California’s broad law regulating automatically renewing subscription services.

The appellate panel, in an unpublished memorandum issued June 30, reversed a federal district court’s dismissal of the proposed class action and sent the case back for further proceedings. The judges concluded that the lower court incorrectly determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over Fenix under California’s unfair competition law.

California’s unfair competition law was amended following the adoption of the California Automatic Renewal Law (CARL).

The law requires businesses that offer subscriptions, free trials, and recurring digital payments to obtain “explicit affirmative consent” from consumers while also providing “clear disclosures” explaining how customers can easily cancel their subscriptions. The requirements apply to businesses offering digital products and services, including adult websites that rely on recurring subscription models.

The lawsuit was filed by two consumers who challenged the way recurring subscriptions and payments operate on the OnlyFans platform.

According to the district court order issued in April 2025 granting Fenix’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs alleged that OnlyFans failed to create a user experience that adequately obtained the “consumer’s affirmative consent to the agreement containing automatic renewal terms.” U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California dismissed the case after agreeing with Fenix’s argument that, because the company is headquartered in London, the California court did not have jurisdiction.

“We conclude that Plaintiffs established that Fenix expressly aimed its conduct at California,” the three appellate judges wrote. “Because the district court concluded to the contrary, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. […] Fenix’s arguments that it did not aim any conduct at California ignore that it regularly fulfills users’ subscriptions wherever those users access its online content, including California.”

The ruling sends the case back to Judge Breyer’s court for additional proceedings on the jurisdictional issue, allowing the lawsuit to move forward. If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail, the outcome could have broader implications for subscription-based creator platforms that operate under business models similar to OnlyFans.

Should the plaintiffs succeed on their claims under the California Automatic Renewal Law, Fenix and the millions of creators who use OnlyFans could face new compliance obligations governing recurring subscriptions.

Those requirements include implementing more transparent billing and subscription practices while ensuring users provide clear, express consent before automatic renewals take effect.

The law also requires companies to notify users of fee increases, updates to subscription terms, and other material changes to user agreements. In addition, cancellation and renewal processes must be straightforward and easy to use, making it simple for subscribers to end recurring payments when they choose.

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Wednesday that his office had won a court order allowing it to seek the temporary locking of the domain name for a pornography website over alleged violations of the state’s age verification law.

The action involves Kick Online Entertainment, the owner and operator of the adult tube site Motherless.com. Paxton’s office filed suit against the company in 2024, alleging it failed to comply with the age verification requirements established under House Bill 1181. As the case has progressed, state officials have pursued a new legal remedy by seeking control over a privately owned domain that serves users both within Texas and beyond the state’s borders.

“This court order establishes a huge precedent that websites can be stripped of their domain if they ignore the law and harm children with pornographic content,” Paxton said. “This affirms that protecting children from pornographic content is not only about collecting a penalty but also shutting down websites that refuse to obey the law.”

“My office will continue to take action against any website that harms kids by allowing them access to pornographic content,” Paxton added.

Under the court’s writ of attachment, Kick Online Entertainment may regain control of its domain if it posts a $9.14 million bond and implements age verification measures for users accessing the site from Texas. The order also resulted in Verisign, the registry responsible for the domain, temporarily locking access until those conditions are met.

The ruling marks an unusual enforcement step following the decision in Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Paxton. While Motherless.com has faced significant controversy in recent years, including allegations highlighted in national reporting, the court’s decision is expected to draw attention because it permits state regulators to seek control over a website’s domain as part of enforcing age verification laws. Legal disputes involving domain names are not uncommon, but using that mechanism in this context represents a notable development in the ongoing enforcement of Texas’ online age verification requirements.

“The Office of the Attorney General will continue to use every available legal mechanism, including writs of attachment against domain names, to enforce Texas law and ensure that no company, regardless of where it is incorporated, can profit from exposing Texas children to harmful content,” Paxton’s office stated.

In the current legal and regulatory climate surrounding online adult entertainment, it feels like it’s a rare day when those of us who work in the adult industry get to celebrate a development that breaks in our favor. This week we were granted such an opportunity however, following a federal judge’s decision holding that an adult website operator domiciled in Spain can’t be sued for failing to comply with Kansas’ age verification mandate.

While there’s more to the decision than this aspect alone, the crux of the court’s decision is a holding that the company and website involved, Pump Lab SL and SuperPorn.com, simply don’t have sufficient “contacts” with Kansas to support the court exercising “personal jurisdiction” over Pump Lab.

In the decision, U.S. District Court Judge Holly Teeter noted that “visitors from Kansas represent 0.086% of the website’s visitors,” and “does not have employees in Kansas, does not own or lease real estate in Kansas, does not conduct business in Kansas, is not licensed to conduct business in Kansas, does not pay taxes in Kansas, and does not have employees in Kansas (or who travel to Kansas).”

If you’re thinking it sounds like Pump Lab truly has fuck-all to do with Kansas, you’re right – and that fact is what sank the attempt to haul them into a Kansas court to face repercussions for alleged failures to comply with Kansas law.

If only to temper my own enthusiasm a bit, it’s important to note that the other recent decisions I’ve hailed as good news for the adult industry were also authored by Judge Teeter, which means it’s possible they’ll all be overturned on related appeals. I doubt that will happen though, mostly because none of this is happening in a vacuum.

If a judge in Teeter’s position in these cases were to hold that citizens of Kansas can haul a foreign company into court based on connections as flimsy as the ones at play in the Pump Lab case, that ruling could ripple out into disputes between U.S. consumers and foreign companies in a broad swath of business sectors nowhere near as controversial or disfavored by the government as porn is – inevitably touching on areas of international commerce the government wants to encourage and see prosper.

The other thing to note here is these sorts of decisions are highly fact dependent – and facts will vary greatly from case to case. As Judge Teeter observed in a previous decision dismissing a case filed under the relevant Kansas law, finding that the defendant’s CDN usage in that case was irrelevant “does not mean that a website owner’s use of a CDN is never relevant” and “does not mean that a website owner’s use of a CDN could never show purposeful direction.”

The same can be said of the lack of sufficient contacts with a jurisdiction like Kansas. Another, otherwise, similarly-situated foreign defendant certainly could do business in a way that creates sufficient contacts in the state for the court to exercise jurisdiction – which would change everything, obviously. At that point, the case would turn on other issues entirely, issues which very well might break against the hypothetical online adult company in question.

So yes, today let us celebrate Judge Teeter’s very rational and measured decision in the cumbersomely titled case of Q.R., a minor, by and through Jane Doe v. Pump Lab, SL – but let’s do so with clear eyes about what the decision does and doesn’t mean for the future.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives on Monday approved the Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act, legislation that would establish federal age verification requirements for adult websites if it ultimately becomes law. The measure, however, still faces significant hurdles in the Senate before it can move forward.

The KIDS Act is a broad legislative package that combines several online safety proposals into one bill. Among them is an updated version of the Shielding Children’s Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act, which would require adult websites across the country to implement age verification systems.

When the legislation advanced through the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in March, it did so along party lines, with Republicans supporting the bill and Democrats opposing it. Before the legislation reached the House floor, however, Republican and Democratic committee leaders negotiated compromise language designed to attract broader bipartisan backing.

That effort appeared to have an impact. The House passed the bill by a vote of 267-117, with support from 104 Democratic lawmakers in addition to Republican supporters.

‘Duty of Care’ Sticking Point

Much of the public discussion surrounding the KIDS Act has focused not on its age verification requirements but on another component of the package: the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).

Democratic lawmakers have criticized revisions to KOSA that removed language establishing a “duty of care” for social media companies, a provision that would have required platforms to help prevent and reduce potential harms to minors. The same concern has also prompted opposition from 44 state attorneys general and a coalition of online safety organizations.

Because the House version specifically excludes a duty-of-care requirement, the legislation is expected to encounter resistance in the Senate, where lawmakers are considering a version of KOSA that retains that language.

Should the House and Senate eventually negotiate a final compromise, the age verification provisions could remain part of the finished legislation—or they could be removed during the reconciliation process.

AV Provisions in the KIDS Act

As approved by the House, Title I of the KIDS Act, titled “Shielding Minors From Obscenity,” would require adult websites to use a “technology verification measure.” The bill defines that as technology using a system or process to determine whether it is more likely than not that a user of a covered platform is a minor, rather than relying solely on self-reported age.

Beyond verifying users’ ages and restricting access by those identified as minors, websites—or third-party age verification providers acting on their behalf—would also be required to take “reasonable measures” to prevent users from bypassing those verification systems. That language appears aimed at addressing the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) and similar tools to avoid age verification requirements.

Any violation of the proposed law would be treated as a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition against unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Companies found in violation could face civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation.

Complicated Compliance Landscape Would Persist

Roughly half of U.S. states currently have their own age verification laws in effect. If enacted, the KIDS Act would establish a federal framework governing those requirements.

The latest House version, however, differs from earlier drafts. While previous language would have invalidated existing state age verification laws, the amended bill states that federal law would preempt state laws only where the two conflict. It also expressly allows states to adopt and enforce stricter requirements than those included in the federal legislation.

That distinction is likely to be significant for adult website operators who had hoped that one nationwide standard might replace the current patchwork of differing state regulations.

Industry attorney Corey Silverstein previously said, “The various state-level AV laws have created absolute havoc throughout the industry, containing small differences that make compliance a nightmare for service providers,” while fellow attorney Lawrence Walters noted that the age verification mandate in the earlier version of the KIDS Act appeared “more forgiving” than most state AV laws.

Under the amended version passed by the House, however, the KIDS Act would establish a federal baseline rather than replace existing state requirements. If enacted in its current form, states with stricter laws could continue enforcing them, while adult websites operating in states without age verification statutes would still be required to meet the new federal standards.

The landscape surrounding age verification laws for adult websites continues to shift at a rapid pace. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, additional states have enacted age verification requirements, lawmakers in Washington have introduced several federal proposals, and governments around the world have continued pursuing similar legislation. At the same time, courts have begun weighing legal challenges that could shape how those laws are enforced. Here’s a look at the latest developments affecting the adult industry.

Roughly half of U.S. states now have laws requiring adult websites to verify the ages of their users. If Congress ultimately passes a nationwide age verification law, it would override those state-level requirements. At present, three separate proposals are pending that would establish a federal standard.

One of those measures is the Shielding Children’s Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act. Originally introduced in February 2025, the bill was amended during committee review but has seen no legislative movement since December.

A revised version of the SCREEN Act has since been folded into the broader Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act, an omnibus package combining multiple online safety proposals. The legislation could soon receive a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, though its path remains uncertain because of Senate opposition to provisions involving social media platforms. The bill has also drawn criticism from a group of 44 state attorneys general and, more recently, from a coalition of online safety organizations.

A third proposal, the SAFE for Kids Act, was introduced earlier this month. Like the other measures, it would require adult websites to implement age verification nationwide. The bill is currently awaiting its first committee hearing and could become an alternative federal option if the KIDS Act fails to advance.

Around the World

Canada’s Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act continues moving through Parliament. The bill, which would require commercial adult websites to verify that Canadian users are at least 18 years old, received its first reading in the House of Commons after previously passing the Senate. It now awaits its second reading.

In Brazil, the public consultation period regarding implementation of the country’s Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents (Digital ECA) concluded on June 15. The law requires adult websites to verify the ages of users located in Brazil. The country’s National Data Protection Authority has also launched an online complaints portal allowing citizens to report suspected Digital ECA violations, including failures to implement age verification.

The United Kingdom’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has continued expanding its enforcement efforts under the Online Safety Act. In May, the regulator opened new investigations into two adult websites as part of its age assurance program and issued more than $800,000 in fines against Youngtek Solutions for failing to implement age checks and respond to regulatory information requests. This month, Ofcom fined First Time Videos, operator of FTVGirls.com and FTVMilfs.com, more than $100,000 for failing to implement age checks. The regulator also issued a provisional finding that the operator of xgroovy.com may have failed to comply with the law’s age assurance requirements, giving the company 20 working days to respond.

Poland’s Ministry of Digital Affairs continues pushing legislation that would establish nationwide age verification requirements as the country works toward fuller implementation of the European Union’s Digital Services Act. Before becoming law, however, the proposal must receive approval from President Karol Nawrocki, who earlier this year vetoed separate legislation implementing key portions of the DSA.

Meanwhile, WebGroup Czech Republic (WGCZ), the parent company of XVideos, XNXX, BangBros and GirlsGoneWild, reached a settlement last month with the State of Florida over allegations that those websites failed to verify the ages of Florida users before allowing access to adult content. Under the agreement, WGCZ will implement age verification across its sites and pay $1.2 million.

In Ghana, where producing, selling and distributing pornography is already illegal, Minister of Communications, Digital Technology and Innovation Samuel George has advocated introducing age verification requirements to prevent minors from accessing adult content online. Speaking at the Fourth African Regional Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty, George proposed requiring users to present a driver’s license or national identification card before accessing adult websites “so that we know who you are and who is going to that site.” During his remarks, George incorrectly stated that users in the United Kingdom must present a driver’s license before accessing pornography. The U.K.‘s Online Safety Act instead permits multiple forms of age assurance, provided they meet Ofcom’s standards for “highly effective age assurance.”

Iowa Joins the AV Club, Missouri Next?

Earlier this month, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed HF 864 into law. The legislation requires websites and applications where at least one-third of publicly available content is adult material to implement what the law describes as “reasonable” age verification measures to prevent minors from gaining access.

When lawmakers first introduced the bill, it referred to “obscene material” as the content requiring age verification, reflecting ongoing legislative confusion over the legal distinction between obscenity and constitutionally protected pornography. The final version replaced that language with the phrase “pornographic for minors.”

Now that the measure has become law, Iowa’s attorney general will enforce it through civil lawsuits. Violations can carry penalties of up to $1,000 each, with a maximum of $10,000 in fines per day.

Missouri may soon become the next state to formally adopt similar legislation. House Bill 1839 currently awaits action from Governor Mike Kehoe. Last year, Missouri’s former attorney general imposed age verification regulations through executive action rather than legislation, prompting lawmakers to introduce bills designed to codify those requirements. If Kehoe signs HB 1839—or allows it to become law automatically after the statutory deadline—the attorney general would enforce the measure through civil lawsuits. Penalties could reach $10,000 per day, plus up to $250,000 if minors access adult material in violation of the law’s requirements.

The VPN Wars Rage On

The growing use of virtual private networks to bypass age verification requirements continues to drive both legislative proposals and courtroom disputes across the United States.

Utah’s new law, which took effect last month, holds adult websites responsible if minors in the state use VPNs or other methods to circumvent geolocation systems. After Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub, challenged the law in federal court, a judge approved a temporary agreement preventing Utah from enforcing that particular provision against Aylo while the constitutional challenge proceeds. In a recent filing, Utah argued that adult websites have the technical ability to detect VPN use and determine users’ locations despite the company’s objections.

Aylo is also defending a separate lawsuit filed by the State of Indiana. Indiana alleges the company violated its age verification law by allowing users employing VPNs to bypass geolocation restrictions, even though Indiana’s statute does not specifically require websites to prevent intentional circumvention.

The outcome of both cases could help determine whether adult websites can be held legally responsible when users intentionally evade geolocation measures. Those decisions may also influence future legislation, including Ohio’s proposed Innocence Act, which would require websites to use licensed geofencing technology that continuously verifies a user’s physical location before determining whether age verification applies.

The proposed federal KIDS Act similarly includes language requiring websites to take “reasonable measures” to address efforts to circumvent age verification.

Failure to Launch: When AV Bills Run Out of Time

Not every age verification proposal survived this year’s legislative sessions. Several bills expired without receiving final approval, effectively ending their progress for now.

Measures seeking to create or expand age verification laws in Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Tennessee and West Virginia have all expired, though lawmakers could introduce similar legislation during future sessions.

Elsewhere, proposed age verification bills in Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania appear to have stalled or have been postponed until their legislatures reconvene.

New Hampshire lawmakers rejected an age verification bill after it passed the state Senate, while New York senators defeated a similar proposal in the Senate Internet and Technology Committee.

DES MOINES, Iowa — The Iowa Supreme Court has unanimously ruled against a group of 12 inmates who challenged a 2018 state law prohibiting the use of public funds to purchase pornography for people incarcerated in Iowa’s prison system.

Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird announced the 7-0 decision on Friday.

Bird, who has long opposed pornography, rejected the inmates’ claim that they have a constitutional right to access porn while in prison.

“Pornography doesn’t belong in prison, and certainly not on the Iowa taxpayers’ dime,” Bird said in a press release. “If pornography is considered contraband for our troops during boot camp it absolutely should not be provided at the taxpayers’ expense to those who are in prison.”

Bird added, “That’s just common sense, and I’m grateful for the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirming that.”

In its decision, the Iowa Supreme Court said prison officials have the authority to restrict pornography in order to protect correctional staff and inmates from the potential risks of sexual harassment and violence associated with the illegal possession and trading of pornographic materials within the prison system.

They say that politics makes strange bedfellows – and honestly, bedfellows don’t get much stranger than when a radical feminist like Andrea Dworkin found herself testifying before the so-called “Meese Commission” (which was actually called “The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography), ostensibly on the same side of the issue with the likes of James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, an organization which largely occupies itself with lobbying against LGBTQ+ rights.

In many ways, Dworkin doesn’t fit the mold of a typical anti-porn activist. Among other things, Dworkin was againstthe existence and enforcement of federal obscenity laws. In an essay included in a collection of her writings called Letters from a War Zone, Dworkin wrote she and her likeminded feminists were “against obscenity laws.”

“We do not want them,” Dworkin added. “I want you to understand why, whether you end up agreeing or not… Obscenity laws are also woman-hating in their very construction. Their basic presumption is that it’s women’s bodies that are dirty.”

This certainly does not mean Dworkin opposed legal efforts targeting the porn industry, however. In her testimony before the Meese Commission, Dworkin suggesting the government consider “creating a criminal conspiracy provision under the civil rights law, such that conspiring to deprive a person of their civil rights by coercing them into pornography is a crime, and that conspiring to traffic in pornography is conspiring to deprive women of our civil rights.”

By the time she made that suggestion, Dworkin, along with fellow anti-porn activist Catharine MacKinnon, had worked with the city government of Minneapolis, Minnesota, to craft an anti-porn regulation for the city to incorporate into its broader civil rights ordinances. Under the regulation, pornography was defined as a civil rights violation against women, and enabled women who alleged they’d been harmed by porn to sue porn producers and distributors for damages.

(Decades later, we’ve seen something of a return of this approach, as various states have passed legislation creating a right of private action against adult companies for alleged harms incurred by minors who access porn on websites that fail to comply with state age verification laws.)

The law in Minneapolis passed twice, but was vetoed by Mayor Don Fraser both times, decisions rooted in his belief the language of the ordinance was too vague to survive court scrutiny. Mayor Fraser’s belief was later vindicated by the courts, after a similar ordinance was passed in Indianapolis, Indiana. The ordinance was challenged by the American Booksellers Association, with a U.S. District Court’s ruling invalidating the ordinance later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Undeterred, Dworkin continued to back similar anti-pornography civil rights legislation in Massachusetts and Washington state, where attempts were made to pass similar ordinances through voter initiatives.

Occasionally, you’ll hear one of Dworkin’s critics assert that she argued all heterosexual sex is “rape” – but an honest reading of her work reveals this as an unfair oversimplification. Dworkin did assert that to the extent the sexual subordination of women depicted in pornography reflected broader societal beliefs and attitudes towards sex, that heterosexual sex in a patriarchal society is inherently coercive to (and degrading of) women and that the act of sexual penetration may by its nature condemn women to a submissive, inferior position that “may be immune to reform.” Nowhere did she write anything like “all heterosexual sex is rape,” however.

In response to her critics, Dworkin later said she believed “both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.”

“Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape,” Dworkin added. “I do not think they need it.”

In any case, nuanced as though her broader social and political views might have been, Dworkin’s opposition to porn was perfectly clear throughout and a big part of her legacy – whether she would want it this way or not – lies in the anti-porn legislation, rhetoric and lobbying she inspired and endorsed over the decades.