Political Attacks

BRUSSELS—The European Commission has released a digital age verification application intended for use across the European Union and its online services. The announcement was made Wednesday by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

“It is our duty to protect our children in the online world, just as we do in the offline world,” von der Leyen said. “And to do that effectively, we need a harmonised European approach. … This app will allow users to prove their age when accessing online platforms. Just like shops ask for proof of age for people buying alcoholic beverages in a shop.”

The application is designed to connect with digital wallet systems and can be used on both mobile devices and computers. It is intended to function as an age verification tool for accessing age-restricted parts of the internet, including social media platforms and adult content sites. The system was developed using a coding framework similar to the one used in COVID-19 vaccination applications adopted by more than 70 countries.

“Europe offers a free and easy to use solution that can shield our children from harmful and illegal content,” von der Leyen said. “And we see more of our Member States making great progress. France, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Spain, Cyprus, and Ireland are front-runners. They are planning to integrate the app into their national wallets.

“The new age verification solution and the enforcement of our rules go hand in hand. Children’s rights in the European Union come before commercial interests,” von der Leyen added. “And we will make sure they do.”

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service on Monday issued final regulations implementing the “No Tax on Tips” provision of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” establishing new tax deductions for certain workers who receive tips while excluding income tied to “pornographic activity.”

The regulation, titled “Occupations That Customarily and Regularly Receive Tips; Definition of Qualified Tips,” states: “Amounts received for prostitution services and pornographic activity are not included in the definition of ‘qualified tips.’”

Following the enactment of the legislation last year, the IRS developed rules to carry out the provision allowing taxpayers in occupations that “customarily and regularly” receive tips to deduct up to $25,000 annually in tip income. After a public comment period, the agency finalized both the list of eligible occupations and the criteria governing which tips qualify for the deduction.

The finalized “List of Occupations That Receive Tips” includes “digital content creators,” and the regulation offers additional clarification for that category. However, the rule specifies that tips connected to “pornographic activity” are not eligible for the deduction, without defining the term.

The IRS acknowledged that several commenters raised concerns about the exclusion and the lack of a clear definition.

“In addition to noting that certain pornography is legal, some commenters stated that pornography is protected First Amendment speech, that these businesses pay taxes, and that in fairness these businesses and their employees should have access to the deduction for qualified tips,” the regulation states. “One commenter suggested the prohibition be limited to activity that is unlawful under State or Federal law. Several commenters requested that the regulations define pornographic activity.”

A submission from the Free Speech Coalition argued that the exclusion of “pornographic activity” is the only categorical restriction in the rule not tied to unlawful conduct and noted that pornography is not formally defined as a category of speech under the law.

“This makes it impossible to determine whether a performance or work that generates tips is eligible for tax exemption,” the group wrote. “If content creators provide material or performances for which they can be tipped, how is it determined whether the content is ‘pornographic?’ If the material depicts genital stimulation, is it ‘pornography?’ If the material depicts no nudity, but the speaker is speaking about sex, is it ‘pornography?’ If the speaker is wearing translucent, or even transparent clothing, but speaks of investments and not sex, is it ‘pornography?’”

The group added that, without a precise definition, the rule creates “unconstitutional discretion” in determining which income qualifies for the deduction.

“Under the proposed rule, the regulations will create an environment where enforcement will inevitably be arbitrary; disputes regarding the categorization of income as having been generated by ‘pornographic activity’ will be constant; and litigation will be chronic,” the comment states. “Every taxpayer whose tip exclusion is rejected under this regulatory category will have a valid constitutional challenge to the rejection.”

The regulation notes that the Treasury Department and the IRS “will consider whether to provide additional guidance regarding these exclusions.” In the meantime, the agency stated that it “intends to interpret the occupations on the list in a fair and impartial manner consistent with their commonly understood meaning.”

The IRS said the exclusion for pornographic activity is “intended to address the potential for greater noncompliance and abuse with respect to these activities and services.”

The provision has drawn comparisons to broader federal policy discussions regarding access to financial services for certain industries. A 2025 executive order directed financial institutions not to restrict services based on lawful business activities, and subsequent reports and agency actions have addressed the use of “reputation risk” in regulatory oversight.

Federal agencies, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, have taken steps to eliminate “reputation risk” as a supervisory factor, while the Federal Trade Commission has cautioned payment processors against denying services based on lawful but higher-risk classifications.

It remains unclear how those policy positions may affect adult-oriented businesses and content creators under the new tax framework. Several agencies and financial institutions have not publicly addressed how the rule will be applied in practice.

The Free Speech Coalition also published an analysis of the regulation by Katherine Studley, a consultant who works with industry professionals on tax and business matters. The analysis attributes the exclusion to advocacy efforts by conservative and religious organizations.

“No acknowledgement that these are legal businesses operated by legal workers who have been paying their taxes,” Studley wrote. “The same businesses who are good enough to tax are apparently not entitled to the same tax relief as everyone else.”

Studley noted that the rule does not exclude individuals based on occupation alone and that eligibility may depend on the nature of the content associated with the tips.

“Adult creators are not banned as a category of person and the tip is tied to the content,” she wrote. “This is advantageous for creators operating across multiple platforms and producing mixed content.”

The “No Tax on Tips” provision is scheduled to remain in effect for four years and is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2028. Lawmakers may revisit or revise the measure before that date.

LONDON — The House of Commons has revised proposed amendments to the U.K.’s pending Crime and Policing Bill, including provisions addressing “step” content, depictions involving adults role-playing as minors, and performers’ ability to withdraw consent.

As previously reported, the House of Lords approved amendments to the bill that would invalidate certain talent contracts and prohibit “step” content and material in which adult performers appear to portray minors. The amendments prompted ongoing discussions between the Lords and the government, which last week signaled support for changes that would narrow their scope.

The House of Commons has now published its proposed revisions to the Lords’ amendments in line with the government’s position. The changes include:

Limiting the proposed restrictions on “step” content. Under the Commons’ version, depictions of incest involving blood relatives would be prohibited, while restrictions on “step” scenarios would apply only where a performer is portrayed as being under the age of 18. The government has stated that this approach is intended to ensure that the law targets material depicting activity that would be illegal if it occurred in real life.

Narrowing the criteria for content depicting adults portraying minors. The Commons’ amendments would specify that only “sound or information associated with the image” can be used to indicate that a character is under 16. This replaces broader criteria that could include visual elements such as clothing or setting. The updated language indicates that audible dialogue, titles, or descriptions accompanying the content would serve as the determining factors. A government

A government memorandum notes that the provision is “not intended to criminalize a pornographic image of someone who is clearly an adult where the only marker of childhood is the fact that he or she is in school uniform.”

Replacing a proposed provision allowing performers to withdraw consent at any time. The Lords’ version would have required platforms to verify the age and consent of all performers and to remove content within 24 hours if consent was withdrawn, regardless of prior agreements. The Commons’ proposal instead calls for the Secretary of State to conduct a review of age and consent verification practices and to report findings to Parliament within one year. It would also grant the Secretary of State authority to intervene and regulate these practices without additional parliamentary approval.

The Commons’ proposals do not include changes to a Lords amendment that would prohibit content depicting “choking.” The government has indicated agreement with that provision.

Differences between the Lords and Commons versions of the bill are expected to be addressed through the parliamentary process known as “ping pong,” during which amendments are exchanged between the two chambers until a final version is agreed.

HARRISBURG, Penn. — Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering legislation that would apply a 10% tax to revenue generated by adult websites operating in the state.

The proposal, titled the “Online Adult Content Subscription Tax Act,” SB 1246, would impose the tax on recurring memberships, subscription fees and one-time access charges for “sexually explicit commercial content” delivered through websites, mobile applications and other online platforms.

In October 2025, the bill’s primary sponsor, Democratic State Senator Marty Flynn, along with Republican co-sponsor Joe Picozzi, issued a memo outlining plans to introduce legislation establishing a new tax on adult content platforms in addition to Pennsylvania’s existing 6% sales and use tax.

“Currently, online adult content platforms generate revenue from Pennsylvania subscribers but contribute nothing beyond the standard sales and use tax,” the memo read. “By imposing a targeted 10% tax on these services and purchases, we can ensure that these platforms contribute their fair share to the Commonwealth.”

The bill was formally introduced on March 30 and has been referred to the Pennsylvania State Senate Finance Committee.

Certain industries in Pennsylvania, including liquor, tobacco and medical marijuana, are already subject to specialized taxes. The bill also states, “This act is not intended to prohibit or censor expressive activity but is solely intended to ensure equitable tax treatment of certain commercial transactions.” Industry attorney Lawrence Walters said the measure raises constitutional concerns.

“It imposes a content-based obligation,” Walters said. “The government generally cannot impose additional tax obligations on protected speech based on its content.”

Walters also said exemptions within SB 1246 may apply broadly, noting that the bill defines “sexually explicit commercial content” as excluding “content determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be constitutionally protected in a specific instance.”

“The courts have repeatedly held that sexually explicit materials are within the scope of First Amendment protection, unless they are obscene,” Walters said. “If the bill passes in its current form, I expect significant litigation to result from any attempt to enforce this tax obligation upon typical adult website operators, given the broad exemptions.”

Confusion over distinctions between “obscene” material, “sexually explicit” material and content considered “harmful to minors” is common in state legislation.

The proposal reflects a broader pattern of state-level measures affecting adult websites following Louisiana’s 2022 age verification law. Utah’s governor signed a bill in March to tax adult platforms, Alabama enacted a similar 10% tax last year, and lawmakers in Virginia have introduced comparable legislation that has been delayed until the 2027 session.

LONDON — The U.K. Ministry of Justice on Friday outlined new government amendments to the pending Crime and Policing Bill, indicating that a proposed ban on “step” content may apply only in cases where adult performers are portraying minors.

In a statement, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said that possession or publication of pornography depicting incest or adults pretending to be children would be criminalized. The statement aligns with amendments previously approved by the House of Lords.

The government’s wording, however, suggests a potential revision to the scope of those amendments.

The statement specifies that the ban on material depicting sexual activity between step or foster relations applies “where one person is pretending to be under 18.” The version approved by the House of Lords does not include that condition.

The change would limit the application of the amendment by removing a broader prohibition on “step” content unless it also falls under a separate provision addressing material that depicts adults portraying minors.

Ongoing Tension Over Content Restrictions

In March, the House of Lords approved amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill that would prohibit material depicting incest, including “step” content.

The government had initially opposed criminalizing content involving sexual activity between stepparents and stepsiblings. Baroness Gabrielle Bertin, a Conservative member of the House of Lords who served as the independent lead reviewer on a U.K. pornography review, advocated for extending the prohibition to include “step” content. The House of Lords approved that change.

The government also opposed an amendment targeting content in which adult performers appear to portray minors, citing concerns about allocating police resources. The House of Lords approved that provision.

Under the Lords’ version, factors such as costume and setting could be considered in determining whether an adult performer is portraying a minor, without requiring explicit reference to age. It remains unclear whether the government will seek to revise that language.

If the Crime and Policing Bill is enacted with the proposed government amendments, publication of pornography depicting incest or adults role-playing as children would be subject to penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment. Possession of pornography depicting adults role-playing as children would carry a maximum sentence of three years, while possession of pornography depicting incest would carry a maximum sentence of two years.

The government’s statement did not address a separate amendment approved by the House of Lords that would allow individuals appearing in adult content to withdraw consent at any time. The government has previously described that proposal as impractical, stating it involves a commercial matter between performers and production companies. The final text of the amendments has not yet been released.

The statement said, “Further details on the amendments will be set out in due course.”

The bill is scheduled to return to the House of Commons on Tuesday for consideration of the new amendments, where further changes may be introduced.

Experts have warned that age verification laws could affect access to online content and related work. Preliminary research suggests those effects may be occurring.

Age verification laws vary by state and country, but generally require individuals to provide proof of age, such as a facial scan or government-issued identification, to access certain content. Since 2022, several U.S. states have implemented these laws. Other countries, including the UK, have introduced similar requirements under legislation such as the Online Safety Act.

The sexual freedom nonprofit Woodhull Freedom Foundation reported that approximately one in five sex educators, or 18 percent, say these laws have already affected their work. Among sex educators working in states with age verification requirements, one in three, or 33 percent, reported an impact.

Approximately 60 respondents completed the survey last month. While the sample size is limited, the findings indicate potential effects of age verification measures.

“Age-verification laws are already impacting sex education in the U.S.,” said Woodhull president and CEO Ricci Joy Levy in a press release.

The majority of surveyed sex educators, 73 percent, said they are concerned these laws will affect their work. Additionally, 76 percent said they are concerned the laws could be used to restrict access to sex education and related resources. According to Boston University, 37 percent of U.S. states require school sex education to be medically accurate.

“Again and again, we were told this was only about keeping minors from accessing porn,” Levy said. “Woodhull warned these vague and overly broad policies would also result in censorship of vital, non-explicit information about sex and gender, and the data bear this out. The current age-verification protocols are ripe for abuse, and educators are right to be scared.”

Separate research from adult industry research firm SWR Data reported similar findings regarding adult content creators. Nearly half, 45.2 percent, of 500 respondents surveyed last fall said their income from adult work decreased over the past year. Two-thirds, or 63 percent, said it became more difficult to earn money during that period.

There are several possible explanations for these trends, including broader economic conditions. However, 98 percent of creators who reported decreased income said they experienced challenges related to what they described as the “War on Porn.”

The term “War on Porn” is used to describe a range of efforts to limit or remove adult content online, including age verification laws. Project 2025, a policy proposal associated with President Donald Trump’s second term, includes provisions calling for a ban on pornography and legal penalties for creators. In 2024, Russell Vought, a co-author of Project 2025 and director of the Office of Management and Budget, described age verification as a “back door” to a broader ban.

Most surveyed creators who reported income loss also cited increased social media restrictions and limitations on the content they can sell. Some also reported that users have had difficulty accessing their content.

Difficulties with access were reported particularly among creators operating in U.S. and UK markets, according to SWR Data. The research also noted ongoing issues with piracy, suggesting that some users may be bypassing age verification systems.

Two separate studies conducted last year found that age verification laws have not consistently prevented minors from accessing adult content. Factors cited include the use of virtual private networks and access to non-compliant websites. The findings indicate that while age verification measures are in place, their effectiveness and broader impact continue to be evaluated.

DES MOINES, Iowa — The fight over what kids see online has landed, again, in a courtroom—this time with Meta Platforms facing a lawsuit from Iowa’s top prosecutor, who says the stakes aren’t abstract at all.

Attorney General Brenna Bird filed the case in Iowa District Court for Polk County, which includes Des Moines, alleging that the company’s social media platforms contribute to addiction and harm among young users in the state.

Bird, a Republican, brought the lawsuit just days after juries in California and New Mexico state courts found that similar platforms are designed in ways that foster addictive behavior.

In a statement, Bird said, “Instagram says their content is safe for kids. It’s not. And Instagram was designed to get our children addicted to it, causing harm to their mental health and physical safety.”

The lawsuit seeks financial damages for the state, citing alleged violations of consumer protection and deceptive marketing laws. It also claims that Instagram exposes teenage users to explicit material.

“Defendants allow rampant profanity, sexual content and nudity, alcohol, tobacco, and drug use and references, and mature/suggestive themes on the Instagram platform, including readily accessible hardcore pornography,” the lawsuit states.

“Defendants use human and computer moderators to police the content on Instagram, but those moderators either systematically fail or apply internal policies that allow these types of content to remain on the platform,” it adds.

The case now moves forward in state court, where questions about responsibility, design, and the reach of social media platforms are expected to take center stage.

PHOENIX — Lawmakers in Arizona have revised a bill targeting online adult content, removing language that had raised concerns it could make compliance effectively unworkable for many sites.

According to Free Speech Coalition Director of Public Policy Mike Stabile, the organization worked closely with the sponsor of HB 2133 to shape the amendments.

“We worked hard in Arizona to educate lawmakers as to the realities of our business and to secure amendments that reflect that,” Stabile said.

Arizona’s HB 2133, titled the “Protect Act,” is part of a broader legislative push aimed at addressing nonconsensual intimate images online, including content generated using artificial intelligence. The bill also introduces new verification and consent requirements for adult websites.

Under those provisions, adult sites would need to use “reasonable” verification methods to confirm that individuals depicted in sexual material are at least 18 years old and have given consent. They would also be required to keep records of that verification for a minimum of seven years.

Earlier language in the bill created what some described as a compliance dilemma. It defined “reasonable” verification methods as affidavits confirming age and consent, verification by an independent third party, or “any other commercially reasonable method that does not retain identifying information after the verification is complete.”

The revised Senate version removes the phrase “that does not retain identifying information after the verification is complete,” addressing concerns that the requirement conflicted with the obligation to maintain records.

Stabile said, “Our issue here was that our members are not able to delete model releases and other consent documents. That is fixed.”

In addition to that change, amendments also removed provisions that would have allowed inspections by the attorney general without a warrant and restricted the sharing of documentation with federal, state, and local law enforcement.

While affidavits and third-party verification remain listed as options, the updated bill does not require them if another commercially reasonable method is used. For many operators, affidavits can be difficult to implement because they typically require notarization, while third-party systems may introduce additional complications with record retention.

“When I spoke with the sponsor, I explained the methods that we currently use,” Stabile said. “While individuals and organizations affected by the law should review their practices and potential liability with their own counsel, the bill as amended lists out ways of satisfying the consent verification requirement. ‘Any other’ commercially reasonable method should allow just that.”

The amended bill also includes language allowing websites to demonstrate that certain material was created before the enactment of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, instead of requiring age and consent verification for that content. The provision is intended to address challenges in verifying older material.

Industry attorney Corey Silverstein said that while the updated language may provide more flexibility, the broader concerns remain.

“Regardless of the ‘softening’ of the language, this is all prior restraint on free speech,” Silverstein said. “The notion that this will actually protect children is absolute nonsense.”

The amended bill has been sent back to the Arizona House of Representatives for further consideration.

It’s hard for me to believe 2016 was only 10 years ago. In the years since, we’ve had a pandemic, a handful of Olympic Games and 1.25 Trump Administrations. We’ve also had a few wars, as well as one “short-term excursion” that bears a strong resemblance to a war, at least to my untrained eye.

In a less literal sense of the word war, we’ve also seen an escalation in the War on Porn, at least with respect to state laws in the United States and international laws and regulations globally.

Interestingly, the one force that hasn’t fired the sort of shot it certainly could squeeze off in the War on Porn has been the federal government. While various bills that would impact the adult entertainment industry are being considered in the House and Senate, what we haven’t seen is an effort on the part of the current Department of Justice to prosecute federal obscenity crimes, other than cases involving Child Sex Abuse Material (“CSAM”).

This brings me back to 2016. That was the year then-presidential candidate Donald Trump signed the “Children’s Internet Safety Presidential Pledge,” an oath authored by the anti-porn activism group Enough is Enough.

Under the terms of the pledge, Trump promised that if he was elected, he would “uphold the rule of law by aggressively enforcing existing federal laws to prevent the sexual exploitation of children online, including the federal obscenity laws,” and appoint an Attorney General “who will make the prosecution of such laws a top priority in my administration and give serious consideration to appointing a Presidential Commission to examine the harmful public health impact of internet pornography on youth, families and the American culture.”

I put the “including the federal obscenity laws” because that phrase indicates obscenity prosecutions involving content created by and for adults, not CSAM. (There are always lots of prosecutions for crimes involving CSAM, as there should be.)

During the first Trump Administration and the first 14 months of the second one, the DOJ has initiated zero obscenity prosecutions of that sort, so far as I’m aware. I can’t speak to whether Trump ever gave “serious consideration” to appointing a Presidential Commission like the one the pledge describes, but no such Commission has been established.

On the one hand, the fact that Trump hasn’t followed through on the pledge he signed is unsurprising. Like every politician, Trump is happy to make promises in one moment and forget all about them in the next. On the other hand, if the current polls are to be believed, he could use a boost – and making a move that appeals to a big segment of his support base might have more appeal than it did previously.

I’m not saying I expect the Trump Administration to suddenly start indicting American pornographers for alleged violation of federal obscenity laws. All I’m saying is it wouldn’t shock me if they did, even if only to bask in the glow of positive publicity coming from the socially conservative ‘Christian Right’ after the press conference at which the prosecutions are announced.

I can almost hear that press conference now:

“These guys we indicted for obscenity are the worst of the worst. They made filthy, disgusting pornography at a level nobody has ever seen before, not even my super smart uncle who taught at MIT and whose great brain was almost as big as mine. And now we’ve totally obliterated their ability to make any more of their sick, demented, often foreign pornography – unless they agree to a deal, which they really should, because we have so much evidence. I’m telling you, we have so much evidence, the jury will be tired of all the evidence we have. And that’s why we have to get rid of paper ballots and mail-in voting.”

I sure hope I’m wrong. Among other things, I’m sick of hearing about his uncle. Except the whole lying about his uncle’s connection to the Unabomber thing. That was awesome.

ROME — An Italian administrative court has ruled that the country’s recently enacted age verification rules can’t, at least for now, be enforced against sites based elsewhere in the European Union.

Last year, Italy’s communications regulator AGCOM said all platforms hosting adult content would need to implement age verification systems to keep out users under 18. The timeline was clear enough: Italy-based sites had to comply by Nov. 12, 2025, while sites operating from other EU countries were given until Feb. 1, 2026.

AGCOM also published a preliminary list of 45 providers it believed would fall under the rule. Many were among the most visited adult sites online, including Aylo-operated platforms Pornhub, YouPorn and Redtube.

Aylo challenged the rules on several fronts, prompting the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio to pause enforcement while it took a closer look. A hearing followed on March 11.

In a ruling released Tuesday, the court sided with Aylo on procedural grounds, finding that AGCOM’s rules do not fully align with the “country of origin” principle set out in the EU’s Directive on Electronic Commerce. The principle provides that online services are generally regulated by the laws of the country where they are established.

The court found that while exceptions to that principle may be justified, certain conditions must be met. The ruling states that a country where content is accessible cannot impose additional obligations unless it first asks the provider’s home country to take action, determines that such action is insufficient, and notifies both the European Commission and the country of origin before adopting restrictive measures.

According to the court, AGCOM did not follow this procedure, meaning companies would have been required to comply immediately without their states of origin having the opportunity to adopt corrective measures.

If the ruling stands, AGCOM will need to complete those steps before enforcing Italy’s age verification law against Aylo or other platforms based in EU member states. The decision may be appealed to Italy’s Council of State.

The ruling applies only to EU-based platforms and does not affect enforcement against sites based outside the European Union.

Cross-Border Legal Framework Still Emerging

While the court upheld Aylo’s complaint based on procedural grounds, it rejected the company’s argument that protection of minors online falls exclusively under the authority of the European Commission in areas covered by the EU’s Digital Services Act.

Aylo, which is based in Cyprus, has been involved in similar legal disputes in other EU countries. In Germany, a court found that the “country of origin” principle limits the ability of individual member states to impose additional national requirements in areas already addressed by EU law.

In France, an advocate general of the EU’s Court of Justice issued a non-binding opinion advising that France can require pornographic websites based in other EU states to comply with its national age verification rules. That case remains pending.

The Italian court stated that efforts to harmonize laws protecting minors online across EU member states are still ongoing. Until that process is complete, the court said, member states may adopt national measures, provided they comply with EU law and the Directive on Electronic Commerce.

“In the absence of a harmonized and mandatory solution at the Union level, Member States may adopt national measures which — while respecting the principles of Union law — ensure a high level of protection for minors,” the ruling states.

The court also indicated that broader harmonization may depend in part on the rollout of the EU Digital Identity Wallet.

The European Commission has launched a pilot program for an age verification application designed to integrate with digital wallets and support compliance with age verification requirements under the Digital Services Act. Italy’s regulations require that age verification systems be compatible with this application, which is also being tested in Denmark, France, Greece and Spain.

Aylo has participated in the pilot program.