The War on Porn Regular Updates about the Assault on The Adult Industry

MANCHESTER, U.K. — Ireland’s media regulator, Coimisiún na Meán (CnaM), is turning to industry participants as it develops a framework to evaluate how online platforms comply with age-assurance requirements under Ireland’s Online Safety Code and the European Union’s Digital Services Act.

A representative for CnaM said Wednesday that the agency is refining how it measures whether platforms are meeting those obligations, particularly in relation to child protection.

Senior official Kamila Slavík said the framework is being built with outside input.

“We are keen to hear from industry practitioners and getting that feedback and insight to make sure that we build our internal framework for how we gather evidence, what type of evidence to look at, how do we assess it, et cetera,” Slavík said. “It’s around making sure that we speak with experts on the topic and make sure we have that expertise as part of how we make our assessments.”

The effort to gather feedback is being carried out in partnership with the Age Check Certification Scheme and is expected to continue for two to three months.

The regulator is also preparing to increase scrutiny of how platforms meet age-verification obligations as part of a broader initiative to strengthen its supervisory approach.

Ireland’s Online Safety Code took effect in July 2025, requiring adult websites based in the country to adopt age-assurance measures beyond self-declaration.

Platforms operating in other EU member states are governed by the Digital Services Act, with national digital service coordinators working together to enforce its provisions, including those related to age assurance.

In December, CnaM’s Digital Services Media Commissioner John Evans told lawmakers that Ireland and other EU countries were preparing to expand enforcement of age-verification rules. In January, Ireland’s Joint Committee on Arts, Media, Communications, Culture and Sport discussed online platform regulation and safety measures, including proposals for stricter age verification requirements for adult sites.

OTTAWA, Ontario — The Senate of Canada on Wednesday approved bill S-209, titled the “Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act,” legislation that would require adult websites operating for commercial purposes to confirm that users in Canada are at least 18 years old.

The measure specifies that age verification must be performed by an independent third party, described as one that “deals at arm’s length from any organization making pornographic material available on the Internet for commercial purposes.”

Responsibility for defining what constitutes “commercial purposes” under the law would rest with the governor general and the federal cabinet.

If the bill is passed by the House of Commons and enacted, noncompliant websites could face financial penalties of up to $250,000 for an initial violation and up to $500,000 for subsequent violations.

Sen. Julie Miville-Dechêne introduced S-209 in May 2025. Her previous attempts to establish nationwide age verification rules did not succeed, including a 2024 proposal that raised concerns from Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne and others regarding potential censorship. Dufresne later expressed support for S-209, telling lawmakers last year that it addressed privacy issues that earlier proposals had not.

The Canadian Bar Association opposed the bill at the time of its introduction, stating that its lack of detail could permit regulations requiring intrusive forms of age verification and could result in “collateral censorship.”

The legislation directs the Federal Court to order internet service providers to block access to pornographic material when websites fail to comply. During committee review, senators removed language indicating that blocking measures could limit adult access to lawful content or result in the removal of non-pornographic material alongside targeted content. The revised version does not explicitly prohibit those outcomes and leaves key aspects of enforcement to be determined by the government.

Before the vote, Conservative Party Sen. Yohan Martin, who serves as deputy opposition leader, described Miville-Dechêne as “a champion” and said the bill reflects an effort to balance protection and privacy.

“I believe we now have before us a bill that, while recognizing that perfect enforcement does not exist, offers a stronger and more proportionate framework,” Martin said. “The message we must send today is simple: When it comes to protecting children in the digital space, inaction is not an option.”

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.

LOS ANGELES — A routine trip to an awards show turned into a life-altering moment for GayVN Award-winner Milo Miles, who was detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at a Canadian airport earlier this year and is now barred from entering the United States for at least a decade.

Miles, who ultimately won at the 2026 GayVN Awards, had been traveling to attend and present at the ceremony when he was stopped in January. Despite the win, he cannot return to the United States unless government authorities grant special permission.

The Toronto-based performer, originally from Medellín, Colombia, has built a strong presence in the industry, earning multiple nominations at the 2026 GayVNs and taking home Best Oral Scene as part of an ensemble cast in the Carnal+ Original production Deeper Deep Throat. He moved to Canada with his family as a child, leaving behind a country affected by cartel violence and political instability.

“I was detained in Toronto at preclearance,” Miles said in a phone interview. He had been scheduled to depart from Toronto Pearson International Airport, one of several Canadian hubs where U.S. agents screen travelers before departure.

The preclearance system allows U.S. officers to conduct inspections on foreign soil before passengers board flights bound for the United States, effectively shifting the border to the departure airport.

Miles said that process often involves armed officers and determines whether travelers are allowed entry before they ever leave Canada. Those cleared typically arrive in the United States as domestic passengers, bypassing customs lines. He added, “Being Latino, an adult content creator, I had heard that people had been banned in the past.

“So, I hired immigration lawyers,” he continued. “It was two or three years ago. … They all said the same thing: there’s not really a way” to legally work in the United States doing porn, “unless you marry someone and get a green card.

“It was explained to me like this: ’If a border agent found out that I did porn, that would fall under the category of sex work. And to them, sex work equals prostitution. After Trump got elected, the concern kind of started growing even more about this, I was told.”

Aware of those risks, Miles said he took steps he believed would reduce scrutiny, including enrolling in the NEXUS trusted traveler program, which is designed to speed up border crossings between Canada and the United States.

“I’ve had this for many years now,” Miles said. “It’s supposed to streamline the process of crossing the border because we have to pre-check with Canada, at least at the airport here in Toronto at Pearson. However, especially in the last year, I’ve noticed that whenever I cross, there seem to be more questions than usual being asked, even though it’s normally supposed to be a straightforward process because of the facial recognition software.”

Miles, who holds dual citizenship in Canada and Colombia, lives in Toronto and has frequently traveled to the United States for work, including film shoots and collaborations. He said he spent eight hours over two days at the preclearance station before being told he would be denied entry under allegations tied to unlawful activity.

According to documents issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, Miles was found inadmissible based on claims that he had engaged in prostitution, a conclusion he disputes in the context of his work in adult film production.

The documents include a transcript of questioning in which an officer pressed him on whether his work constituted prostitution, despite distinctions commonly drawn between adult film production and escorting.

Miles acknowledged during questioning that he had previously worked as an escort, describing it as consensual arrangements between adults in which he was compensated for his time.

U.S. law grants border officials broad discretion to deny entry, regardless of a traveler’s history or intended duration of stay.

“You appear inadmissible to the United States … in that you are an alien who is coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or has engaged in prostitution within ten years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,” the official notice states. “You are currently engaging in prostitution or were coming to the United States to engage in prostitution.”

Miles said his purpose for traveling was to attend the GayVN Awards, but the determination resulted in a ban that will remain in effect until 2036.

“The one thing that I think kept me grounded throughout the whole experience, even though I knew where things were headed, was knowing that I was very thankful that this was happening in Toronto,” he said. “Regardless of what happens at this airport, I’ll still be able to go home and sleep in my own bed and to know that I’ll still have that fundamental freedom that God gave to Canada.

“It’s a very unfortunate thing,” Miles said, referencing his partner, a U.S. citizen, and the disruption to his plans to build a career in the United States. Reflecting on the experience, he added, “It’s more of, like, a psychotic attack. Even though I was clearly dealing with agents who didn’t seem to care about equity, diversity or inclusion, and who came across as homophobic, it wasn’t just about those individuals.

“This appears to be a systemic bias and a broader issue within the department, though not necessarily across the entire federal government,” he concluded.

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.