INDIANAPOLIS — A judge has blocked a new Indiana law from going into effect which would have effectively cut off Hoosiers from accessing adult content websites, such as PornHub. In his decision, the judge called the law “likely facially unconstitutional.”
Previously, Indiana lawmakers passed Senate Bill 17 which was signed into law by Governor Eric Holcomb and set to go into effect on July 1. Under the restrictive bill, websites hosting “material harmful to minors” would have required Hoosiers to upload sensitive documents, such as driver’s licenses, in order to prove their age.
While proponents of the law argued the age-verification law was meant to protect minors from accessing explicit material, such as pornography, critics pointed out that the law was not only a potential violation of the First Amendment but also opened up Hoosiers to substantial risk of having their sensitive information and documents stolen.
While Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita defended the age-verification law as a “shield” to protect children from “the psychological and emotional consequences associated with viewing porn,” the Free Speech Coalition filed a lawsuit to stop the law from going into effect.
“We will continue to fight for the rights of adults to access the internet free of shame and surveillance,” said Alison Boden, executive director of Free Speech Coalition. “While they may sound reasonable on their face, laws like SB17 have effectively functioned as state censorship.”
On Friday, a judge with the United States District Court of Southern Indiana issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect on July 1. In his decision, the judge concluded that the law “likely violates the First Amendment” and echoed many of its critics such as pointing out how the law could be easily circumvented with technology and the broad, vague scope of the law.
The vagueness of the law was previously called out by the ACLU of Indiana who sounded the alarm against the age-verification law and its vague use of “material harmful to minors,” which the ACLU speculated could go beyond just blocking pornography and be used to also block “age-appropriate LGBTQ+” or be used to censor sex education content.
The ACLU also pointed out how the law could be easily circumvented, needlessly putting Hoosiers’ sensitive information at risk.
“The worst part, the law won’t even work,” said the ACLU of Indiana. “Minors will just go to sites that aren’t regulated by Indiana law or use technology to bypass the verification method. A @CommonSenseMedia report found 6 in 10 older teenagers already use VPNs to browse the internet.”
As part of his decision, the judge wrote in defense of his injunction by stating, “Indiana’s legislature chose an ineffective and more broad method to protect minors from harmful materials than other alternatives. The First Amendment does not allow such imprecision.”
The injunction will remain in effect until a final judgment is made or a higher court dissolves the injunction.
