:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/CJ5VPRI7RREG7DTART6TE24LSY.jpg)
A bill that would require users to provide identification before viewing websites with nudity or sexual content looks likely to be signed into law this week — and some privacy and free speech advocates caution it could have far-reaching effects.
“I think when people talk about age verification for adult content it seems very simple,” said Mike Stabile, public affairs director for the Free Speech Coalition, a trade group that advocates on behalf of the adult entertainment industry. “I don’t think they always understand what age verification could mean in terms of government surveillance, identity theft, and the burdens that come for an adult trying to access legal content.”
The bill passed the General Assembly this year with strong bipartisan support. Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who has until midnight Friday to decide whether to sign it into law, has indicated support for it.
A similar measure in Utah took effect earlier this month and spawned significant pushback.
To protest the new law, Pornhub, one of the most popular adult websites, has blocked all users in Utah from accessing its content. The Associated Press reported that those in Utah who attempt to access the site are now greeted with a “Dear User” letter and accompanying video from an adult film actor explaining the company’s stance.
It was unclear whether the company might consider similar action in Virginia if Youngkin signs the bill. A spokesperson for Pornhub did not return a request for comment.
The Free Speech Coalition filed a lawsuit in Utah arguing the law violates the privacy rights of individuals who want to view legal sexual content online. Stabile said the organization will consider similar action in Virginia if the bill becomes law.
The group sent a letter in March urging Youngkin to reject the measure.
“Even good actors and governments struggle to secure this type of data,” the letter states. “ ... The introduction of this kind of scheme creates a massive opportunity for criminals. Personal information regarding sex and sexuality is highly sensitive, and criminals are adept at exploiting this.”
Instead, the coalition offered to work with the governor on promoting parental controls and device-level filters.
The bill states commercial entities that knowingly publish material “harmful to minors” on the Internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material must verify that users are 18 or older. Users would need to submit copies of government-issued identification or another reasonable method of age and identity verification.
Those in violation would not face criminal penalties but would be subject to civil liabilities.
The bill defines material as “harmful as minors” if it includes descriptions or representations of nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement, or if it appeals to the “prurient, shameful, or morbid” interest of minors and lacks serious literary, scientific or artistic value.
Sen. Bill Stanley, who introduced the measure, told a Senate committee in February that it was intended to prevent minors from viewing pornography online.
“When we had video stores that was pretty easy to enforce because kids under the age of 18 couldn’t go in the backroom,” said the Republican from Franklin. “But now we have the internet, (which is) not only brilliant in terms of what it can do for all of our lives but also possesses a dangerous edge.”
Stanley said viewing pornography could have detrimental effects on relationships, body image and mental health. The senator said legislators have a responsibility to prevent those under 18 from accessing it.
“You may even say ‘Well, it’s up to the parents’ — no, we don’t do that in government,” he said.
No one at the committee hearing testified for or against the bill, which was sent to the governor’s desk in March.
When asked if he had concerns about the backlash in Utah, Youngkin told The Virginian-Pilot he would consider the bill’s ramifications.
“I‘m doing my final review of the bills and we’re going to get that done this week,” he said Wednesday. “I believe that children should be protected from pornography and I want to make sure that we do that.”
The governor, who initially sent the bill back to the General Assembly with an amendment, added he was “really disappointed” legislators nixed his recommendation. Youngkin had proposed adding a requirement for social media websites to obtain parental permission before allowing access to minors.
Stabile said the coalition agrees minors shouldn’t be watching pornography. But he said parents should enable filters or blockers on their children’s electronic devices. He said the coalition would support a public awareness campaign to urge parents to implement such tools.
But Stabile explained identification laws ultimately have a “chilling effect” on pornography altogether — which he believes is likely the intent.
“These are censorship bills,” he said, adding many adults are afraid to upload their personal information because of the stigma around porn and the ramifications they could face from a data breach.
Stabile said the organization also has concerns that such laws open the door for further restrictions down the road on any materials some groups or legislators find offensive.
Some organizations are pleased to see stricter rules go into effect.
The National Center on Sexual Exploitation, a nonprofit, wrote in a May 4 news release that pornography is often rife with sex trafficking or other forms of sexual abuse.
“Utah is to be commended for passing a commonsense measure to protect children from accessing pornography,” the organization wrote. “Research is clear that pornography can be extremely harmful.”
A spokesperson for the Family Foundation of Virginia told the Pilot the organization supports the bill. But a representative was unavailable for comment.
Hayley Tsukayama, a senior legislative activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said she believes there are legitimate concerns with minors accessing pornographic sites. But she said there are better solutions than enacting identification laws that could put users’ personal data at risk.
Today's Top Stories
The foundation is a nonprofit that defends digital privacy and free speech.
“We really do encourage more conversations between children and their parents about what is appropriate online,” she said. “But this is not a place for the government to come in and set what are essentially parenting rules for everyone.”
Stabile said he understands many people find pornography offensive.
But he said even those who personally oppose porn may want to think twice about laws that target it.
“Porn has always been the canary in the coal mine of free speech,” he said. “You might not like it; you might find it morally repugnant. But if you don’t defend it, it allows the government to then go after a whole other host of content.”
Staff writer Gavin Stone contributed to this report.
Katie King, katie.king@virginiamedia.com