OLYMPIA, Wash. — A new age verification bill in the Washington state legislature would require adult sites to post notices warning users of alleged health risks, despite a previous federal court ruling against such requirements.
Sponsored by Republican Rep. Chris Corry and Democratic Rep. Mari Leavitt, HB 2112, titled the “Keep Our Children Safe Act,” would require adult sites to verify the ages of users located in the state. It is generally similar to numerous AV laws already in effect in U.S. states or pending in state legislatures.
However, HB 2112 additionally mandates that sites subject to its AV rules must display “information pertaining to the youth health risks associated with adult content” on their landing pages and in advertisements for the site, as well as contact information for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration helpline.
The bill does not specify the text of the required notices, noting only that wording is “to be developed by the department of health.”
As XBIZ reported last week, a new bill in the Missouri state legislature would similarly require adult sites to post such notices.
That bill, HB 1831, specifies that the mandatory notices must contain language identical to that originally proposed in Texas’ HB 1181, the state age verification bill that sparked the pivotal Supreme Court case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
The court’s ruling upholding the Texas law ultimately paved the way for enforcement of state AV laws around the country. However, the version of the Texas law upheld by the Supreme Court did not include the “health warnings,” as those provisions had already been struck down by the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, when it upheld an injunction by a district court deeming the requirement to post such notices to be unconstitutionally forced speech.
Given the 5th Circuit’s ruling, it is unclear how either Missouri’s HB 1831 or Washington’s HB 2112 could be expected to proceed. Asked about this potential roadblock, Rep. Corry told XBIZ that he was not aware of the 5th Circuit's decision and would investigate further.
"As we move through the process we can amend as needed," Corry said. "I am sure we will hear from both proponents and opponents of the legislation. It is rare that a bill does not need amending after being introduced. I am committed to making sure all legislation follows both the federal and state constitution."
Industry attorney Corey Silverstein remains "cautiously confident" that the bill as written will ultimately not pass legal muster.
"The health warnings are blatantly unconstitutional, and I can’t imagine a world where even the most conservative justices turn their back on this level of First Amendment violations," Silverstein told XBIZ. "One of the biggest drawbacks to the Paxton decision was always going to be overly aggressive legislators trying to push the envelope as far as they can. It emboldened many conservative lawmakers to push forward in their anti-porn crusade.
"Washington and Missouri won’t be the last two states to engage in these tactics," Silverstein predicted. "Since Paxton, state lawmakers are basically trying to one-up each other as to how far they are willing to cross the line. My home state of Michigan is the best example of this madness, with the introduction of the Anticorruption of Public Morals Act, which aims for a total ban on online pornography in Michigan.
"The industry must continue to aggressively fight these laws," he added. "Without resistance, things will only get worse."
Proposed Warnings Contradict Public Health Experts
Earlier this year, a North Dakota House of Representatives committee amended a resolution that would have recognized pornography as a “public health hazard,” instead replacing that language with a call for further study into whether such a designation is appropriate.
The resolution’s original language called pornography a “critical public health issue,” asserted that pornographic materials “perpetuate the demand for sex trafficking, prostitution, child pornography, and sexual abuse images,” and claimed that “pornography has been linked to detrimental health effects, including brain development complications, emotional and medical afflictions, the inability to form and maintain intimate relationships, and sexual addiction.”
At the time, North Dakota state Rep. Cynthia Schreiber-Beck observed that pornography “does not fulfill the public health field’s definition of a public health crisis.”
“After doing some research… this doesn’t really fly,” Schreiber-Beck told the North Dakota House of Representatives Education Committee.
Between 2016 and 2020, numerous states declared pornography to be a public health crisis, but health and medical authorities have debunked this claim, including in a study published by the American Public Health Association.
The authors of that study wrote, “The movement to declare pornography a public health crisis is rooted in an ideology that is antithetical to many core values of public health promotion, and is a political stunt, not reflective of best available evidence.”
