The War on Porn

For as long as I’ve been thinking and writing about online age verification, something that goes back to the early days of the online adult industry and a once-numerous category of platforms called “AVS” sites (which stood for Adult Verification Sites, as I recall), I’ve been telling people that once the government gained a foothold in restricting access to adult content online, legislative bodies would then seek to expand that foothold to encompass a wide variety of content types – and to broad categories of technology used to either create or consume content.

This is one of those instances when I’m very unhappy to have been proven right.

Late last week, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law a measure that restricts the features AI chatbots can provide to minors – and to users whose adulthood has not been verified.

The new law specifies twelve varieties of “unsafe AI companion features,” a list which goes well beyond sexually explicit content – and well beyond the encouragement of self-harm, for that matter.

Under the law adopted by New York, AI chatbots are restricted from suggesting the chatbot is alive, human, capable of human emotions, or suggesting that there’s a personal or professional relationship between the user and the chatbot. The chatbots can’t suggest they have a role as an authority, cannot offer responses positioned as the chatbot’s own personal opinions or emotional appeals, nor can they offer flattery, or function as sycophants that might encourage or endorse awful lines of thought.

Some folks might read that and think it’s a reasonable list of restrictions. Hell, some might even wonder why the state would limit these protections to minors, given what we know about some truly terrible outcomes involving adult users of AI companions.

But the point here isn’t really whether this specific law is a good or bad idea; it’s that we all know this isn’t the end of the story. Considering the Supreme Court’s decision in FSC v. Paxton, courts across the country are already reconsidering past rulings that nixed other age verification measures, like those related to the SCOPE Act in Texas.

To be clear, I’m not against regulating AI. I’m not even against enacting specific restrictions pertaining to the use of AI by minors. What I’m against is the legislative version of “feature creep,” a phenomenon I believe we’re currently watching as it unfolds in real time.

The New York law has several rather expansive provisions, some of which might be well-intentioned, but are nonetheless problematic, both from a compliance perspective and as they relate to the First Amendment.

For example, the law restricts outputs “that constitute, describe, or facilitate sexually explicit conduct or child sexual abuse material,” as attorney Corey Silverstein noted in a recent newsletter alerting readers to the new law.

This too might sound reasonable at first glance. But suppose a minor asks an AI companion for advice on dealing with an abusive situation the minor is experiencing in the real world; will the chatbot be restricted to saying “Sorry, I can’t talk to you about that”? Can it direct the child to counselors, law enforcement and other resources which can help?

New York’s law was opposed by the Business Council of New York State – and the opposition wasn’t on the grounds that the BCNYS hates children or wants AI chatbots to be allowed to counsel minors to kill themselves. The Council opposed the legislation because “restrictions on ordinary conversational responses could affect educational tools, accessibility applications and general-purpose AI assistants.”

In May, the Council authored a memo arguing that the bill’s definitions are “overbroad and inconsistent with existing New York law.” The Council also asserted the prohibitions “would sweep in educational, research, and general-purpose tools that serve and benefit minors every day,” while its age-verification mandate “contradicts the bill’s own ‘actual knowledge’ standard and raises serious constitutional, privacy, and security concerns.” To top it off, the measure’s “liability framework imposes strict liability on non-deceptive conduct, and its enforcement mechanism — including a private right of action with punitive damages and disgorgement — creates unquantifiable litigation risk that would chill beneficial innovation.”

The Council also noted that an existing set of restrictions on AI chatbots, the New York AI Companions Act, has only been in effect since November 2025. There’s barely been time to measure the initial impact of that law, and already New York is adding layer upon layer over the top of it.

Again, none of this is to say I’m against regulating AI or restricting how minors use AI. My concern is that the more we regulate what minors can do with technologies like AI chatbots, the more we burden and complicate adults’ use of the same technologies. And while age verification measures generally are politically popular, how effective these measures will turn out to be is anyone’s guess. Thus far, regulations like the UK’s Online Safety Act don’t appear to be having much impact.

Right now, the government might be focused on AI chatbots, but what’s the next technology or form of expression to be crammed within the restrictive regulatory grasp of age verification? The possibilities are legion, because whether we like it or not, adults and children live in the same world.

While the rules of that shared world can’t be the same for minors and adults, maybe we ought to consider more deeply both what we’re giving up in the name of protecting minors – and whether those measures even work in the first place – before we go rushing adding to the list? Just a thought.

When it comes to enforcing the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, you can’t say that Ofcom, the organization charged with enforcing the OSA, is sitting back and doing nothing.

In recent months, Ofcom has opened an investigation into Pornhub’s reliance on Apple device-based age checks. They have fined the likes of XGroovy, FTVGirls and other site operators. They’ve also opened investigations into additional adult platforms.

What Ofcom hasn’t done, by its own admission, is make much of a dent in the problems the organization is purportedly trying to solve.

In the report linked above, Ofcom states that “most children in the UK say they have encountered at least one piece of harmful content online in a four-week period” and the evidence collected by the organization shows that “at a total level there was no significant change in the proportion of children encountering harmful content over the first nine months after the children’s safety duties came into force in July 2025.” Ofcom says that last finding is “concerning and shows that further progress is needed to protect children online.”

Of course, what Ofcom means by “further progress” is tighter restrictions on personal expression, more enforcement, more fines and more investigations. More of the same actions that have produced very little in terms of impact, thus far.

The gradual creep of laws like the OSA is on full display in the recent Ofcom statement, as well. As Ofcom noted, the UK Government “has announced its intention to introduce a social media ban for under 16s and additional protections for under 18s to create a safer online environment for children.” Ofcom says it will “shortly be publishing our rapid assessment of what highly effective age assurance could look like for determining whether someone is 16 or over and are working closely with the government on the implementation of the expected new restrictions” and “continue to drive compliance with the Online Safety Act for services that fall outside the social media ban and to improve the experience of 16–17-year-olds.”

I’m not sure what you were like when you were 16 or 17, but speaking strictly for myself, I was far from innocent – and I came of age well before the internet was a thing, let alone a thing filled to the brim with sexually explicit content.

I’d seen plenty of porn by the age of 16 too, most of it pilfered from a parental sock drawer or found laying about in the bedroom of some friend’s older sibling, who had turned 18 and was savoring the (more or less unfettered) right to view people without their clothes on that comes with reaching that apparently magical benchmark age.

By 16, I was sexually active, as well. Maybe not as sexually active as I wanted to be, but sexually active, nonetheless. Some folks might object to the fact that my girlfriend at the time had already turned 18, making our relationship technically illegal in our home state, which didn’t have a “Romeo and Juliet” clause in its age of consent laws at that time. But in our view (which I really think should count?) we were age peers and there was nothing at all unseemly about us dating. To be honest, the most concrete differences between the two of us were (a) she was much smarter than me and (b) she had a car of her own.

Looking back, do I feel like society failed to protect the teenage me? Not one bit. Do I have any regrets about hooking up with someone two years my senior when I was the apparently tender age of 16? Only that I didn’t get to do so many, many more times. Far from offering me traumatic memories, I look back on that time with a big, dopey smile on my face.

As fate would have it, I also didn’t turn out to be rapist, murderer, sociopath, or even a plain old mundane misogynist. And this has continued to be the case, even though I’ve now spent nearly 30 years toiling in the online adult entertainment space, which is the belly of the beast itself, to hear the likes of Ofcom tell it.

There’s no question the internet has a lot of content on it that isn’t made for children and shouldn’t be viewed by them. This content includes pornography, of course, but if I were making a list of the types of content I wouldn’t want kids to run across, porn would not be near the top of the list, let alone at its very summit. Not when there’s content from hate groups looking to recruit young people, videos of people doing unspeakably cruel things to animals (or to other people), political propaganda, recruitment materials from terrorist groups and literal bombmaking instruction manuals running around out there.

And here comes the really depressing part: Agencies like Ofcom likely won’t have much success reining in those other problematic content types, either, for all the same reasons they’re not having much impact on kids accessing online porn. They won’t fail for lack of trying, mind you; they’ll fail because the nature of the internet makes it a very, very difficult place to govern or tame.

So, what’s the answer? I know a lot of people probably don’t want to hear this, but the answer is parenting.

While it’s nice to think the government can serve as a big cyber nanny to your kids, the truth is the government simply isn’t up to the job. There are too many kids, too many websites and too many ways to circumvent even the most stringent of laws. It’s possible technological advances will come to the rescue in some meaningful way in the future, but for now, the best defense you have against the internet corrupting your kid is yourself.

Earlier I wrote about my lack of innocence at age 16. But what I did have at age 16 were parents that weren’t afraid to talk to me about things that might upset me. They were able to provide context, to explain the difference between sexual fantasies and sexual reality, to emphasize the importance of consent and above all else, to imbue in me a sense of personal responsibility and a need to view the world with both wonder and skepticism.

If the internet had existed when I was minor, would my parents have allowed me to surf it? Honestly, probably not. I wasn’t prohibited from watching TV, but I was limited to a one-hour daily allotment (with an exemption for news programs and televised sports) and encouraged to read, instead.

I’m sure it’s probably no easier for parents to keep their kids offline than it is for governments to keep those same kids off porn sites, but parents can – and should – be prepared to offer their kids guidance and context. If that, too, has become a government job, we’ve got much bigger problems than kids stumbling across online porn.

LONDON — Criminal prohibitions on certain categories of pornography in England and Wales will take effect Friday, Nov. 6, under provisions of the Crime and Policing Act 2026, according to an announcement issued by the U.K. Ministry of Justice.

The legislation, passed by Parliament, prohibits specific types of pornography and adult content depicting choking, age-play and certain “step-family” scenarios, including material produced legally and consensually in countries such as the United States. The government says the restrictions are intended to address “the harm that some forms of pornography can have in shaping real-world behavior.” Violations carry prison sentences.

“That is why it has criminalized the possession and publication of particularly harmful forms of pornography, including material depicting strangulation or suffocation, sex between certain relatives (‘incest porn’), and adults roleplaying as children under 16,” the ministry said in its official guidance on the legislation. “These offenses tackle pornography that risks normalising conduct that is harmful or illegal in real life, such as child sexual abuse.”

The categories covered by the law have been classified as violent, including depictions involving consenting adults participating in controlled production environments.

The legislation prohibits depictions of choking and adult performers portraying minors. Amendments also prohibit depictions of sexual activity between “step and foster relations” when one participant is “pretending” to be under 18. A previously proposed blanket prohibition covering all depictions of “taboo” and “step” relationships was shelved.

“I am deeply disappointed with the U.K. government’s decision to give the adult industry such a short preparation window before these new criminal provisions take effect in England and Wales on November 6,” said Corey Silverstein, an attorney who represents adult entertainment industry clients, in an email. “Publishing compliance guidance just three weeks before enforcement does not give businesses a realistic opportunity to obtain legal advice, review extensive content libraries, retrain moderation teams, and implement the necessary changes.”

Silverstein said the short implementation period creates additional difficulties for platforms, producers and other industry participants, increasing the likelihood that businesses could misinterpret the Justice Ministry’s requirements.

“These measures reach into fictional scenarios involving consenting adults, raising serious questions about freedom of expression and the boundaries of criminal liability,” Silverstein said. “Whatever the government’s policy objectives, businesses deserve precise rules and a meaningful transition period. When criminal penalties are at stake, a rushed compliance deadline is especially difficult to justify.”

The new prohibitions carry prison sentences for violations involving the possession or publication of material covered by the legislation. Under the law, offenses include possessing or publishing images and videos depicting choking or strangulation; sexual activity between “certain relatives,” including people portrayed as related; and sexual activity involving individuals who appear to be under 16, including adults portraying minors.

Possession offenses carry prison terms of two to three years, depending on the material involved, while publication offenses carry maximum sentences of five years. The legislation provides defenses in specific circumstances, including cases involving a lack of knowledge, unsolicited receipt of the material, direct participation in the activity depicted, or a legitimate reason for possessing or publishing it. The law does not define what constitutes a “legitimate reason.” It also treats possession and publication as “continuing acts.” Under the legal doctrine governing continuing offenses, criminal liability may arise when a person develops the required guilty intent while an ongoing act continues. As a result, conduct that began without criminal intent may become an offense if the person continues it after the necessary intent has formed.

“If you possess or are continuing to publish an image covered by these offenses, you must stop doing so before they come into force,” the Justice Ministry said in its guidance. “This means if you possess it, you need to permanently delete it or otherwise get rid of it before commencement. If you are continuing to publish it (whether online or offline), you need to remove it and stop publication before commencement.”

LUXEMBOURG — The General Court of the European Union has upheld regulators’ original decision to classify adult camming platform Stripchat as a very-large online platform (VLOP) under the bloc’s Digital Services Act, despite the platform losing that designation in 2025.

Stripchat’s parent company, Technius Ltd., challenged the European Commission’s decision, arguing that the platform had been incorrectly designated as a VLOP. Under the EU’s Digital Services Act, platforms in this category face additional regulatory oversight and obligations involving user data protection, child safety and age assurance.

The designation is based primarily on a platform’s audience across the EU, with a threshold of 45 million monthly users, although the European Commission also has regulatory discretion in determining which services fall within the category.

Regulators removed Stripchat’s VLOP designation in 2025. However, the legal challenge before the General Court in Luxembourg continued. The case was originally filed in early 2023, alongside challenges brought by the parent companies of other major adult platforms, including Pornhub and XVideos.

Despite the 2025 reclassification, attorneys representing Cyprus-based Technius continued to contest the European Commission’s authority to designate Stripchat as a VLOP in 2023.

Technius’ attorneys argued that Stripchat should not have been subject to mandatory supervisory fees or direct oversight by the European Commission. The company also sought a ruling that could establish a legal precedent for similar cases involving other platforms.

The General Court ruled that the European Commission had acted lawfully when it relied on the audience data available at the time to designate Stripchat as a VLOP under the Digital Services Act. Although the platform subsequently lost that classification, the ruling indicates that the later change did not invalidate the original designation or eliminate its legal consequences. The decision also addresses the continuing relevance of obligations associated with the classification during the period it was in effect.

A central issue in Stripchat’s legal challenge was the reliability of the audience data used by regulators and whether the European Commission had adequately considered information provided by the company itself. The case also examined whether corrections to the platform’s audience figures, which led to the removal of its VLOP status, affected the legality of the original designation.

A Stripchat spokesperson said the company was reviewing the ruling and considering whether to appeal to a higher EU court. “We are reviewing the judgment with our legal advisors and considering the appropriate next steps, including the possibility of an appeal.”

The spokesperson added, “We remain committed to strengthening our safeguards, engaging constructively with the relevant authorities, and maintaining a safe and responsible environment for adult users while preventing access by minors.”

SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge has agreed to suspend a lawsuit challenging a Utah law that seeks to prevent people from using virtual private networks (VPNs) to bypass the state’s age verification requirements, giving lawmakers time to consider changes to the legislation.

A joint filing by Utah officials and Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub, confirms that both sides have agreed to pause the litigation. The dispute centers on whether Utah can prohibit the use of VPNs to circumvent age verification requirements and how the state defines a user’s “deemed location.”

“In light of the Court’s recent ruling regarding [Senate Bill (SB)] 73, the parties anticipate that the Utah Legislature may consider amending the statute,” reads the joint filing submitted by attorneys representing Aylo and the Utah Attorney General’s Office.

The attorneys referred to a recent decision by U.S. District Judge David Barlow of the District of Utah, who granted Aylo a preliminary injunction that initially blocked enforcement of SB 73.

“Rather than continuing to litigate Plaintiffs’ claims against the current version of SB 73, the parties therefore agree that staying further proceedings in this case would be the most efficient course for both the parties and the Court to see what, if any, amendments the Legislature makes to the provision of SB 73 challenged in this case,” the attorneys argued. Judge Barlow approved the request, postponing further proceedings until after the Utah Legislature adjourns next year, according to court documents.

Lawrence Walters, an attorney who represents clients in the adult entertainment industry, described the development as “sensible.”

“Rather than forcing continued litigation over a provision both sides appear to recognize may need revision, the parties’ joint request for a stay allows the legislature an opportunity to address the technical and legal realities of the internet,” Walters said.

“Perfect geolocation does not exist, and laws that ignore that fact risk imposing extraterritorial burdens, chilling protected speech, and creating unworkable compliance obligations for platforms,” he added. “We hope Utah lawmakers use this pause to repeal the law, and potentially craft a more carefully tailored approach that respects both legitimate child-protection goals and the First Amendment rights of adult creators, platforms, and consenting adults. Any age verification mandate must be constitutionally sound and technologically realistic.”

Corey Silverstein, another attorney representing adult industry clients, expressed a similar view in an email. Silverstein said, “Pausing this case gives Utah lawmakers an opportunity to correct a provision that demands more than websites can reliably deliver.

“A website operator should not face liability simply because a user conceals their location through a VPN,” Silverstein explained. “Protecting minors is a legitimate objective, but it does not give Utah unlimited authority to impose its requirements on internet users around the world.”

One night around 30 years ago, I went out to a bar with some friends to shoot pool and have a few beers. It was a neighborhood bar I’d been to several dozen times without ever showing my ID, a transaction probably deemed unnecessary by the bartenders, who took one look at my quite full beard and rightly concluded it wasn’t something a person under 21 years of age could grow.

There was a new guy tending bar on that night, however, one who was perhaps feeling pressure to do everything “by the book” due to his newness. Whatever his reason, he demanded to see my ID. I duly produced my driver’s license – which the bartender noted had recently expired. Thus, he said, I couldn’t shoot pool or drink beer in his bar.

The assertion was incorrect, as one of the patrons seated at the bar helpfully noted. Normally, I wouldn’t put much stock in the legal opinion of a random bar patron, but this regular customer also happened to be an attorney – who represented the bar’s owner, among other local clients.

“The purpose of the law is to assure you don’t serve anyone who is underage,” the attorney explained to the bartender. “The ID might be expired, but that doesn’t mean his date of birth has changed. It’s not valid as a license to operate a vehicle, but for the purpose of identification, it’s just fine.”

The bartender wasn’t having it. He shooed me off the premises despite the attorney’s assurance he didn’t need to. Fortunately, back at home I had a current, valid passport, so in the time it took me to make the round-trip drive home, I was back at the pool table, with a beer in my hand. If I hadn’t possessed that passport, though, I’d have been stuck at home, thirsty and thoroughly miffed.

I’ve been thinking about that night a lot lately, in the context of age verification laws, not just within the United States, but especially here, because the U.S. is where I live – and because the protection of the First Amendment is something we like to believe sets us apart from much of the rest of the world.

We all know about countries that have fined adult websites for allegedly failing to comply with their age verification laws and about how these laws continue to proliferate around the country. What gets discussed a lot less are the people these laws leave behind – namely, adults who don’t possess identification.

I think a lot of people underestimate how many adults around the country and globe lack government-issued identification, not to mention lack empathy for people who find themselves in that predicament. Estimates vary greatly, but some researchers peg the number of American adults without government issued identification as high as 34.5 million. There are also many Americans with forms of identification that might be acceptable for some purposes, but not others, like Native American tribal IDs.

As noted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “age verification systems foster unequal access to information and provide an asymmetric solution to find essential information, build community, and weigh in on public discourse,” and as governments and companies “increasingly require users to prove their age before accessing online services, these individuals risk being excluded from large parts of the internet altogether.”

I’m sure many proponents of age verification laws won’t lose any sleep over the notion of adults being denied access to online porn, because for many of the legislators who advanced these bills, discouraging everyone from watching porn is the whole point, not merely a side benefit.

For those Americans among us who do care about little, trifling things like equality under the law, the right to access expression protected by the First Amendment and basic fairness, however, the de facto paywall created by age verification laws isn’t something we should dismiss as a minor issue. To the contrary, that paywall ought to be front and center among our objections to the laws which created it.

LUXEMBOURG — Luxembourg’s Independent Audiovisual Authority (ALIA) has fined the parent companies of LiveJasmin a combined €25,000 for failing to adequately enforce age verification requirements on the adult camming platform.

ALIA, the country’s national audiovisual regulator, determined that JWS Americas and JWS International failed to implement age restrictions in accordance with Luxembourg law. The companies operate LiveJasmin in Luxembourg and other European Union member states.

JWS and affiliated companies, including Byborg Enterprises, are owned by Docler Holding, which was founded by Hungarian billionaire György Gattyán. Docler is headquartered near the Grand Ducal golf club, outside Luxembourg City.

The latest penalty adds to a series of regulatory actions against the company that began in August 2025. The initial investigation followed ALIA’s mandate to enforce legislation that “requires video-sharing platforms (hereinafter ‘VSPs’) to implement appropriate measures to protect minors from content that may impair their physical, mental, or moral development, notably, through the implementation of user age verification systems.”

The fine concerns alleged violations of Luxembourg’s Electronic Media Law and the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Worth approximately $28,000 at current exchange rates, the penalty followed an investigation that found inconsistencies in the platform’s enforcement of age verification requirements for users connecting from Luxembourg and other EU member states.

According to ALIA, a parent submitted a complaint expressing “concern about the ‘level of unrestricted access available on the LiveJasmin website.'” “[The parent] states that [their] son was able to access content on the platforms without having an account or subscription, even though, in [their] view was ‘extremely inappropriate and deeply concerning,” the regulator disclosed in its ruling.

ALIA officials also alleged that LiveJasmin and its affiliated companies failed to cooperate with the investigation. Representatives of JWS maintained that the violations identified were isolated breaches of the platform’s content policies and argued that age verification measures had been standardized across EU member states.

The regulator, however, concluded that measures implemented in other member states did not satisfy Luxembourg’s requirements. Like other platforms operating across multiple jurisdictions, LiveJasmin applies different age verification measures depending on the region.

ALIA explained, “The providers (JWS) have not uniformly deployed age verification systems in all [EU] member states and continue to adopt a differentiated approach based on national legal frameworks. In Austria, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands, the providers have not implemented any age-verification system.”