The War on Porn Regular Updates about the Assault on The Adult Industry
Related Articles
There’s always that moment in a legislative debate where the fine print becomes the real story. Not the headline promise, not the talking points — but the quiet clause that disappears or survives. In Wisconsin this week, that moment revolved around VPNs, privacy, and the ever-evolving chess match between lawmakers and the internet.
The Wisconsin state Senate moved forward with a bill requiring adult websites to verify users’ ages, but not without a notable shift. Lawmakers approved an amendment stripping out language that would have forced sites to block virtual private network traffic — a detail that felt small on paper but huge in practice.
Critics of state-level age verification laws often point to a glaring reality: the internet doesn’t respect borders. Because these laws apply only within a single state, users can simply flip on a VPN and appear somewhere else entirely. That workaround has become almost folklore at this point, and the growing media spotlight on VPN use has nudged lawmakers across the country to explore ways of closing that loophole.
Originally, Assembly Bill 105 tried to do exactly that. The measure included a requirement that operators “prevent persons from accessing the website from an internet protocol address or internet protocol address range that is linked to or known to be a virtual private network system or virtual private network provider.” But one of the bill’s co-sponsors later introduced an amendment removing the provision — a move that quietly reshaped the bill’s practical impact.
On Wednesday, the Senate agreed to that amendment. The Assembly followed suit almost immediately, approving the revised language and clearing the path for the bill — now without its VPN clause — to head to the governor’s desk.
Interestingly, the VPN issue barely surfaced during the session’s discussion. Instead, the debate that did emerge centered on privacy and data concerns. Two senators, one Democrat and one Republican, voiced opposition to the broader bill, warning about intrusiveness, data retention, and the uneasy feeling many people have when personal information becomes the price of access.
Still, the VPN question isn’t going away. Whether Wisconsin chose to sidestep it or simply delay the conversation, the broader tension remains unresolved. Other states are watching closely, and some are already taking a more aggressive stance.
West Virginia’s SB 498, for example, includes language that would explicitly prohibit platforms from allowing users to bypass age checks through VPNs, proxies, or other anonymizing tools. That proposal is waiting for its first committee hearing, but its existence alone signals where parts of the legislative map may be heading.
Meanwhile, Indiana has taken the fight into the courts. The state is suing Aylo, arguing that the company and its affiliates failed to prevent users from skirting age verification through VPNs and location spoofing. Indiana’s statute doesn’t explicitly mention VPNs, yet the lawsuit claims the company is still in violation “because Indiana residents, including minors, can still easily access the Defendants’ websites with a VPN IP or proxy address from another jurisdiction or through the use of location spoofing software.”
If West Virginia’s bill gains traction — or if Indiana prevails in court — it could ripple outward, encouraging other states to push harder on the VPN front. And that’s the strange rhythm of these debates: each state becomes a test case, each lawsuit a signal flare. The technology moves fast, the laws try to catch up, and somewhere in between sits the user, toggling settings and wondering how much privacy is left in the process.
