Political Attacks

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.

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.

KANSAS CITY, Kan. — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing adult website SuperPorn of violating Kansas’ age-verification law, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The decision, issued Monday, follows similar rulings in two related lawsuits that were thrown out earlier this year.

The legal challenge was one of four cases brought by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, a conservative anti-pornography organization. Acting on behalf of a 14-year-old Kansas resident and the teen’s mother, the group alleged that the minor was able to access content on several adult websites without any age-verification process being completed.

In February, Judge Holly Teeter of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed two of those lawsuits on jurisdictional grounds. A third case was filed against Multi Media LLC, the company behind Chaturbate. After the court granted the company’s request to compel arbitration, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case, bringing that matter to a close.

The final lawsuit targeted Pump Lab SL, which operates SuperPorn.com. The plaintiff presented several arguments in an effort to establish that the Kansas court had jurisdiction over the company. Judge Teeter, however, rejected those arguments in Monday’s ruling.

“Defendant admits that its website was accessible in Kansas but argues that it did not intentionally direct its activities at Kansas,” the ruling states. “Defendant contends it merely operates a website that is universally accessible. Plaintiff disagrees and argues that the ubiquity of Defendant’s website and the ability to access the website anywhere does not insulate Defendant from the exercise of jurisdiction in Kansas. Plaintiff highlights Defendant’s use of CDNs, Defendant’s use of ‘cookies,’ Defendant’s knowledge of user location, and the revenue Defendant generates from advertising. But still missing is intentional conduct targeting Kansas and the substantial harmful effects from which Plaintiff’s claims arise or relate to. The Court finds that it lacks specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant.”

The ruling also addressed the broader challenge courts face when applying traditional jurisdictional principles to online activity. It acknowledged “the tension inherent in a doctrine premised on geographic limitations and the peculiarly nonterritorial quality of the internet,” before concluding, “The Court has made its best effort to navigate this developing area of the law.”

Industry attorney Corey Silverstein, commenting on the decision in a legal analysis, said, “This decision reflects an increasingly important trend in internet-jurisdiction cases: courts are distinguishing between technologies that make a website universally accessible and conduct that intentionally targets a specific forum.”

Meanwhile, the state of Kansas is pursuing a separate lawsuit against SARJ LLC, alleging that several of its adult websites — including MetArt, SexArt and VivThomas — failed to implement age-verification measures required under the same state law at issue in the NCOSE-backed cases. SARJ has argued that the jurisdictional reasoning that led to the dismissal of the earlier lawsuits should apply to its case as well. Whether the court will reach the same conclusion in an enforcement action brought directly by the state remains an open question.

WASHINGTON — A newly announced bipartisan agreement within the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce could move a proposed federal age-verification measure closer to a vote before the full House of Representatives. Even so, significant hurdles remain before the legislation could become law.

The proposal is part of the broader Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act, an omnibus package that combines several online safety measures. Included in that package is an updated version of the Shielding Children’s Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act, which would establish nationwide age-verification requirements for adult websites.

When the committee first approved the KIDS Act in March, lawmakers voted along party lines, with Republicans backing the measure and Democrats opposing it. In an effort to improve the bill’s prospects on the House floor, committee Chairman Brett Guthrie and Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. worked together to negotiate revised language intended to attract broader support.

In a joint statement released Monday, the two lawmakers said, “We worked across the aisle for many months and have now found common ground on policies to significantly improve the digital environment for kids.”

The specific revisions have not yet been made public, though they are not expected to affect the age-verification provisions that would apply to adult websites. Much of the discussion surrounding the package has instead centered on another component, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). Some Democrats have raised concerns about changes to language that previously would have imposed a “duty of care” obligation on social media platforms.

While support from the committee’s Republican and Democratic leaders strengthens the bill’s position, passage by the full House remains uncertain. Should the legislation advance to the Senate, disagreements over the “duty of care” provision could become a significant obstacle, as the Senate is considering a version of KOSA that retains that language.

If lawmakers from both chambers eventually negotiate a compromise between their differing versions of KOSA, the age-verification provisions contained within the KIDS Act could either remain part of the final legislation or be removed during the process.

Age-Verification Provisions in the KIDS Act

Roughly half of U.S. states currently have age-verification laws in place. If enacted, the federal requirements contained in the KIDS Act would supersede those state laws.

Title I of the legislation, titled “Shielding Minors From Obscenity,” would require adult websites to implement a “technology verification measure.” The bill defines that as technology that “(A) employs a system or process to determine whether it is more likely than not that a user of a covered platform is a minor; and (B) prevents access by minors to any sexual material harmful to minors on a covered platform.”

To meet the proposed requirements, websites or their third-party verification providers would need not only to verify users’ ages through such technology, but also take “reasonable measures” to prevent circumvention of those systems. The language appears aimed at addressing the use of virtual private networks, or VPNs, which are often used to bypass age-verification controls.

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

PHOENIX — Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs announced Friday that she has vetoed legislation known as the “Protect Act,” a measure approved by the Republican-controlled state legislature that would have introduced new consent-related requirements for adult content and included provisions addressing artificial intelligence-generated non-consensual intimate imagery.

The bill, HB 2133, will not become law unless lawmakers secure enough votes to override the governor’s veto.

If enacted, the legislation would have imposed new state-level requirements on certain adult content uploaded to the internet from Arizona-based IP addresses.

HB 2133 also contained provisions aimed at addressing non-consensual intimate images (NCII) created through artificial intelligence.

“My office attempted to work with the [bill] sponsor on ways to further protect victims without shielding politicians from criticism as HB 2133 does,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to legislative leaders explaining her decision to reject the measure.

The governor’s comments referenced concerns raised by the bill’s primary sponsor, Republican state Rep. Nick Kupper, regarding the use of artificial intelligence to create parodies of elected officials and political figures. During legislative discussions surrounding the bill, Kupper cited examples involving AI-generated political parody, including content depicting public officials in ways they had not consented to, which he argued raised concerns about the growing capabilities of the technology.

Kupper specifically referenced a recent episode of the animated television series South Park that included a parody of President Donald Trump. The episode featured a satirical depiction of Trump in a nude scene, with the program’s creators using exaggerated visual elements as part of the joke.

Hobbs also pointed to the recently enacted Take It Down Act as part of her rationale for the veto. In her explanation, she noted that federal law already addresses non-consensual intimate imagery on a nationwide basis and establishes an existing regulatory framework for handling such cases.

LONDON — The United Kingdom’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has fined First Time Videos (FTV) £80,000 for failing to meet age-verification requirements under the Online Safety Act.

FTV must now pay the penalty, which is equivalent to approximately $100,000. The company operates a network of membership-based adult websites, including FTVGirls.com and FTVMILFs.com. The enforcement action follows an earlier investigation into the company’s compliance with the law.

“Age checks are not optional, and are a cornerstone of our laws to protect children from harmful content, including pornography,” said Greg Lusty, Ofcom’s director of enforcement. “We want to send a clear message to the industry that any company which fails to comply can expect to face similar enforcement action.”

According to a statement issued by Ofcom, the £80,000 fine will be paid to His Majesty’s Treasury. The Online Safety Act requires pornography websites to implement what the regulator describes as “highly effective” age-assurance measures. Companies that fail to comply may face financial penalties and additional regulatory action.

In the same announcement detailing the penalty against FTV, Ofcom said it had notified the operator of xgroovy.com that it has “reasonable grounds to believe” the website did not comply with the age-verification requirements.

Ofcom also announced that it has broadened its ongoing investigation into a company identified as Sun Social Media Inc.

BRASILIA, Brazil — Brazil’s National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) has begun monitoring 18 high-traffic adult websites to assess compliance with the country’s Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents (Digital ECA), which requires age-verification measures for users accessing adult content from within Brazil.

In a statement released Friday, the agency said the purpose of this initial monitoring stage is to determine whether website operators are implementing safeguards designed to prevent access by children and adolescents. The ANPD also said it is gathering information and data that will help guide future regulatory decisions.

Formal enforcement measures are not expected to begin until January, provided the agency follows the timeline it previously announced.

According to the statement, the 18 websites selected for monitoring account for approximately 98% of adult-content web traffic in Brazil. The sites include tube platforms, creator subscription services, a webcam platform and two escort advertising websites:

Xvideos.com
Xvideos.red
Onlyfans.com
Pornhub.com
Xhamster.com
Xnxx.com
Socialmediagirls.com
Sambaporno.com
Animeshentai.biz
Hentaistube.com
Privacy.com.br
Thehentai.net
Cameraprive.com
Hyper.cool
Shokka.com
Thisvid.com
Fatalmodel.com
Photoacompanhantes.com

Earlier this month, the ANPD also introduced a public complaints portal that allows citizens to report potential violations of the Digital ECA. The reporting system is intended to help the agency identify possible cases of noncompliance as it continues preparing for the enforcement phase scheduled for next year.

Prominent adult attorney Corey Silverstein wrote an article on XBIZ about Utah’s law SB 73.

Here is a summary:

Utah’s new law, SB 73, significantly expands the state’s regulation of adult websites by going beyond traditional age-verification requirements. The legislation requires age verification for users accessing adult content and introduces new provisions aimed at preventing users from bypassing those requirements through VPNs, proxy services, or other location-masking technologies. Under the law, a person physically located in Utah is considered a Utah user regardless of any efforts to conceal their location online.

The measure also adds several enforcement tools, including a 2% excise tax on covered companies, administrative oversight by Utah’s consumer protection authorities, civil penalties for violations, and restrictions on platforms that encourage or assist users in circumventing age-verification systems. Supporters describe the law as a child-protection effort, while critics argue that it places unrealistic compliance burdens on websites and could create liability even when platforms make good-faith efforts to comply.

Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub and other adult platforms, has filed a lawsuit challenging the law, particularly its VPN-related provisions. The company argues that Utah is attempting to hold websites responsible for actions they cannot fully control and that the law interferes with adults’ access to constitutionally protected content. Some portions of the law have reportedly been temporarily paused while the case moves through federal court.

The legal challenge comes after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Texas’s age-verification law in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, but observers note that Utah’s statute extends much further. Rather than simply requiring age checks, SB 73 seeks to regulate technological circumvention and may raise broader constitutional questions involving due process, vagueness, overbreadth, interstate commerce, and the extent to which states can require online platforms to monitor user behavior.

Privacy concerns have also become a major part of the debate. Critics argue that requiring users to submit identification documents, facial scans, or other personal information to access legal adult content creates security risks and could expose sensitive data to breaches or misuse. The outcome of Aylo’s lawsuit is expected to have implications far beyond Utah, potentially influencing how other states approach age verification, VPN regulation, online privacy, and platform liability in the future.

Here’s the full article: https://www.xbiz.com/features/298906/what-utahs-sb-73-means-for-compliance-requirements

Last week, Senator Jim Banks (R-Indiana) announced the introduction of the “Safety and Age Filtering Enforcement (SAFE) for Kids Act,” which would impose criminal penalties on platforms that fail to perform age verification of their users, if the platform is a “commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes on an internet website material, of which greater than 1/3 of which is sexual material harmful to minors.”

Tortured syntax aside, this probably sounds like a reasonable idea to people who believe minors accessing internet porn is a big problem. Where some might find reason for pause, however, is the part where the bill spells out the consequences for platforms that run afoul of the new law, should the SAFE for Kids Act eventually meet with Donald Trump’s signature.

Under the bill, entities that knowingly violate the law “shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.” The fine tops out at $1,500,000 if “the violation resulted in access to sexual material harmful to minors by not less than 100,000 minors… the covered commercial entity had profits of more than $1,000,000 during any year that were attributable to the violation,” or “the covered commercial entity engaged in efforts to deceive the Attorney General or the Commission or obstruct an investigation of an alleged violation of this Act.”

But hey, if you’re a libertarian type who thinks maybe putting people behind bars for years for failing to verify the age of a website visitor might be a bit of overkill, don’t worry: This SAFE for Kids Act effort is also about fighting communism, or woke-ism, or maybe both.

Banks’ press release asserted that the SAFE for Kids Act by “a broad coalition of organizations and advocates,” but one glance at the list of groups and individuals supporting the bill suggests that the broadness in question must be geographical, as opposed to ideological.

The bill’s supporter list includes the American Principles Project, Heritage Action, Clare Morell and Chloe Lawrence of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Institute for Family Studies, National Decency Coalition, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Concerned Women for America. (If you find evidence of any of these organizations taking a position that’s to the left of one taken by, say, Pat Buchanan, please let me know.)

Underscoring the decidedly rightward bent of the bill’s supporters is a quote from Kevin Roberts, the President of Heritage Action.

“Americans are angry that their kids are being indoctrinated into a left-wing ideology intended to infiltrate their hearts and corrupt their moral center,” Roberts said. “Parents deserve laws that empower them to protect their children. The SAFE for Kids Act is a necessary solution that will finally hold individuals and companies liable if they fail to implement meaningful safeguards to prevent minors from being exposed to explicit content.”

Roberts didn’t bother to draw a line connecting the alleged indoctrination into a left-wing ideology to the availability of sexually explicit content online, likely because he believes he didn’t need to do so. It’s just manifest, right? Porno people are a bunch of lefties, everyone knowns that!

Well, try telling that to the likes of Richelle Ryan, Brandi Love, or any number of the adult business owners and entrepreneurs who have voted for Trump over the last few election cycles (and in some cases, probably began voting Republican long before Trump decided he didn’t want to represent the Reform Party, after all).

Are we to believe these folks are trying to indoctrinate their viewers into an ideology against which they’ve voted in the past? Or are we to understand that these sneaky smut-slingers are clandestinely attempting to sway young minds in the other direction? Is ostensibly conservative-authored porn simply ANTIFA erotica in MAGA clothing?

I suppose in the end, in the immediate context, it doesn’t matter. If the SAFE for Kids Act becomes law and one of their sites is deemed to be in willful noncompliance with the law, presumably those porn industry conservatives will be subject to fines and imprisonment, just like anyone else in that situation.

Unless, of course, they happen to have assaulted a police officer outside the halls of Congress a little over five years ago. In that case, they’ve clearly been mistreated by a Weaponized Justice System and will receive a Full and Proper Pardon. That’s simply what decency demands.

LUXEMBOURG — A decision from the European Union’s highest court on Tuesday handed a victory to France in its effort to apply age-verification requirements to foreign pornography websites on an individual basis.

The Court of Justice of the European Union agreed with France’s position that member states have the authority to enforce their age-verification laws against websites operating outside their borders. The ruling has implications across the European Union, where similar measures could be pursued by other member nations.

The legal challenge was brought by WebGroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates, the parent companies behind XVideos and XNXX. Their lawyers argued that France’s legislation conflicts with the EU’s e-commerce directive, which treats the bloc as a unified digital marketplace and is built around what is known as the country-of-origin principle.

Under that principle, online platforms are generally regulated by the laws of the country where they are established and operate. The framework was created to promote consistency throughout the European Union and to avoid requiring technology companies to navigate a patchwork of 27 separate national regulatory systems.

The court concluded that French authorities may require age-verification measures on adult entertainment websites even when those companies are headquartered in another EU member state, such as the Czech Republic or Cyprus. As a result, some operators could face regulatory obligations and potential penalties from both France and their home countries. Cyprus serves as the base for several Aylo-affiliated technology companies that operate Pornhub, MyDirtyHobby and other sites within the company’s portfolio of free and subscription-based platforms.

“Such measures may nevertheless be taken, on a case-by-case basis, in compliance with the material and procedural conditions set out in the directive,” said Thomas von Danwitz, vice-president of the EU Court of Justice, in explaining the court’s move away from the country of origin principle.

The ruling is expected to have particular significance for Aylo and WebGroup Czech Republic, both of which have previously been involved in disputes with French regulators over age-verification requirements.