The War on Porn Regular Updates about the Assault on The Adult Industry
Related Articles
Something old — and foundational — is back on the chopping block in Washington. This week, members of Congress introduced two separate bills that would dismantle Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the legal backbone that protects interactive computer services — including adult platforms — from being held liable for user-generated content.
On Tuesday, Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming introduced HR 6746, known as the Sunset to Reform Section 230 Act. The proposal doesn’t tinker or trim around the edges. It simply adds one stark sentence to the law: “This section shall have no force or effect after December 31, 2026.”
A day later, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina followed with his own bill, S 3546, which would also repeal Section 230 — this time, two years after enactment.
An Attempt to Gain Leverage
The delayed timelines aren’t accidental. Rather than calling for an immediate repeal, lawmakers appear to be using the threat itself as leverage — a ticking clock meant to force reluctant stakeholders to the negotiating table.
On the right, critics argue that platforms hide behind Section 230 while censoring conservative speech. Their goal is to limit platforms’ ability to moderate content as they see fit. On the left — and sometimes crossing party lines — lawmakers rail against “Big Tech” for profiting from illegal or harmful material, pushing for stricter moderation by making platforms legally responsible for what users post.
In a statement, Hageman warned that “outside interests” would try to block reform efforts.
“We must therefore find a way to force the issue through the reauthorization process,” she said.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, one of several Democratic co-sponsors of Graham’s bill, echoed that sentiment. Supporting S 3546, he framed it as a pressure tactic designed to corner tech companies. The bill, he said, would “force Big Tech to the table with a bold demand: either negotiate sensible reforms now or lose your absolute immunity forever.”
Others backing the legislation — Graham included — spoke less about leverage and more about repeal as an end goal. Either way, the ripple effects would land hard on the adult industry.
Potential Consequences
Once Section 230 is opened up, even slightly, it becomes easy to imagine targeted carve-outs — the same way FOSTA/SESTA stripped protections from sites accused of “unlawfully promoting and facilitating” prostitution or sex trafficking.
Industry attorney Lawrence Walters didn’t mince words. “The modern adult industry is largely dependent on Section 230, which allows for operation of fan sites, cam sites and adult platforms,” he said. “If this bill is passed, or an adult industry carve-out is adopted, these business models are threatened. This frontal assault on Section 230 immunity should be a source of great concern to the adult industry and online freedom, generally.”
Those concerns aren’t new. Back in 2024, Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Alison Boden warned that altering or repealing Section 230 would unleash chaos.
“I think that it would cause a further crackdown on sexual content,” Boden said. “If there was a carve-out of Section 230 for ‘obscenity,’ the same way that FOSTA/SESTA carved out ‘human trafficking,’ that would have serious implications.”
And the odds of an adult-specific carve-out feel higher now than ever, given the broader political climate.
The Supreme Court has already signaled a shift, ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton that laws restricting access to adult content may be subject to a less rigorous standard of review. During his first term, President Trump attempted — unsuccessfully — to repeal Section 230 through an amendment to an unrelated bill. His FCC chair pick, Brendan Carr, has openly called for gutting Section 230 protections and previously helped author Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership,” which controversially asserted that pornography “has no claim to First Amendment protection.” Graham’s bill is also bipartisan, with co-sponsors that include influential Democrats like Dick Durbin and Amy Klobuchar.
A carve-out aimed at adult platforms would function as a de facto repeal of Section 230 for the industry. Any site hosting user-generated content would suddenly be exposed to legal liability — and a flood of civil lawsuits would almost certainly follow.
While the First Amendment protects legal speech, Section 230 has long acted as a shield against attempts to suppress that speech through litigation. Without it, unpopular expression — and adult content sits squarely in that category — becomes an easy target.
Industry attorney Corey Silverstein put it bluntly: losing Section 230 would be “catastrophic.”
“It would mean that internet service providers, search engines, and every interactive website could be left responsible for the actions of its users,” Silverstein said. “That is simply untenable, and these businesses would not be able to exist out of fear of being sued out of existence.”
And that’s the quiet reality behind the rhetoric. Strip away the politics, the soundbites, the threats meant to scare platforms into compliance — and what’s left is a question no one seems eager to answer: what happens to online speech when the shield disappears?
