The War on Porn Regular Updates about the Assault on The Adult Industry
Related Articles
OLYMPIA, Wash. — Every so often, a bill shows up that feels like it’s carrying baggage from an old argument — the kind you thought had already been settled. That’s the energy surrounding a new age-verification proposal in Washington state, which would require adult websites not only to verify users’ ages but also to post warning notices about alleged health risks — despite a previous federal court ruling that struck down similar requirements.
Sponsored by Republican Rep. Chris Corry and Democratic Rep. Mari Leavitt, HB 2112 — known as the “Keep Our Children Safe Act” — would require adult sites to verify the age of users accessing content from within the state. Structurally, it mirrors many of the AV laws already enacted or currently moving through legislatures across the country.
Where it veers into new territory is with an extra mandate: websites subject to the law would also need to display “information pertaining to the youth health risks associated with adult content” on their landing pages and in advertisements, alongside contact details for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration helpline. It’s the kind of addition that shifts the bill from regulatory to ideological — and into legally risky waters.
Notably, the legislation doesn’t spell out what those warnings would actually say. Instead, it leaves the wording “to be developed by the department of health,” a placeholder that creates as many questions as it answers.
A similar approach surfaced just last week in Missouri, where lawmakers introduced their own bill calling for nearly identical warning requirements on adult websites.
Missouri’s proposal, HB 1831, explicitly demands that the warning language match what was originally written into Texas’ HB 1181 — the age-verification statute at the center of the landmark Supreme Court case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
That ruling ultimately cleared the path for states nationwide to begin enforcing AV laws. But the court upheld a version of the Texas law that no longer included the so-called health warnings. Those provisions had already been rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which upheld a lower-court injunction finding the warnings amounted to unconstitutional compelled speech.
Given that precedent, it’s far from clear how either Missouri’s HB 1831 or Washington’s HB 2112 would survive legal scrutiny. Asked about this potential obstacle, Rep. Corry acknowledged he wasn’t aware of the 5th Circuit decision and said he planned to look into it.
“As we move through the process we can amend as needed,” Corry said. “I am sure we will hear from both proponents and opponents of the legislation. It is rare that a bill does not need amending after being introduced. I am committed to making sure all legislation follows both the federal and state constitution.”
Industry attorney Corey Silverstein remains “cautiously confident” that the bill as written won’t withstand a constitutional challenge.
“The health warnings are blatantly unconstitutional, and I can’t imagine a world where even the most conservative justices turn their back on this level of First Amendment violations,” Silverstein said. “One of the biggest drawbacks to the Paxton decision was always going to be overly aggressive legislators trying to push the envelope as far as they can. It emboldened many conservative lawmakers to push forward in their anti-porn crusade.
“Washington and Missouri won’t be the last two states to engage in these tactics,” he predicted. “Since Paxton, state lawmakers are basically trying to one-up each other as to how far they are willing to cross the line. My home state of Michigan is the best example of this madness, with the introduction of the Anticorruption of Public Morals Act, which aims for a total ban on online pornography in Michigan.
“The industry must continue to aggressively fight these laws,” he added. “Without resistance, things will only get worse.”
Proposed Warnings Contradict Public Health Experts
Earlier this year, a North Dakota House committee amended a resolution that originally sought to label pornography a “public health hazard,” dialing the language back and replacing it with a call for further research into whether that designation was even appropriate.
The original version of the resolution claimed pornography was a “critical public health issue,” arguing that adult material “perpetuate[s] the demand for sex trafficking, prostitution, child pornography, and sexual abuse images,” and asserting that it had been “linked to detrimental health effects,” including purported impacts on brain development, emotional health, intimate relationships, and the creation of sexual addiction.
At the time, state Rep. Cynthia Schreiber-Beck publicly pushed back on those claims, noting that pornography “does not fulfill the public health field’s definition of a public health crisis.”
“After doing some research… this doesn’t really fly,” Schreiber-Beck told members of the House Education Committee.
Between 2016 and 2020, several states adopted similar “public health crisis” resolutions around pornography. But health and medical authorities have consistently rejected that framing, including in a study published by the American Public Health Association.
The study’s authors concluded: “The movement to declare pornography a public health crisis is rooted in an ideology that is antithetical to many core values of public health promotion, and is a political stunt, not reflective of best available evidence.”
Sometimes laws don’t reveal their real purpose until you scan the fine
