Mamdatory age verification adds barriers to adult users and does not effectively prevent children from access, which is the reason that the Third Circuit, in a decision that the Supreme Court declined to hear a government appeal, struck it down as a First Amendment violation the last time the federal government tried it, after the Supreme Court had done so the prior time, and nothing substantial has changed about those facts, and the First Amendment is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth, so there is no reason for a different result when Texas tries to do it now.

This rule affects 100% of the visitors to the site from that state, not just minors. Many adults will not want to give their ID and personal information to a site that could get hacked and then be blackmailed. If you want an internet where you need to show your ID at every door you enter, then we want drastically different things.

Is it illegal to show a fake ID to a 3rd party, non-governmental business?

It is illegal to create or possess a fake ID in my state, which can result in 6 months in prison, a fine, and suspension of your driver's license.

Its also safe to assume such ID would be directly associated with my account, which of course would also require an email address. This effectively kills anonymous viewing of adult content on the internet, while also letting companies build and sell profiles about you.

We give up so much to solve what? A problem that hasn't been quantified in either scope or harm?

>It is illegal to create or possess a fake ID in my state, which can result in 6 months in prison, a fine, and suspension of your driver's license.

ANY Fake ID or just a state/federal one?

Can you fake a, say, Hungarian Driver's License and send them that?

I guess that wouldn't be illegal. Nice catch. But I don't know if Pornhub would accept a Hungarian ID when they are doing a Texas filter block. It would just be easier to VPN at that point. I don't think citizens should have to be crafty to live their lives (especially in their own home). Also consider minors are capable of doing these very same workarounds, so once again we get security theater at the cost of great personal privacy.

I find it completely implausible that the current court will find this to be an undue burden. Sure, if they banned porn, you could probably cobble together a coalition to save it. But the court that doesn’t care about SESTA/FOSTA will not plausibly care about an ID requirement.

Minors don't have credit cards or money to spend so they're actually a liability because of high bandwidth costs, not sure how that's a market.

It’s interesting how people grow up and pretend they did not watch some sort of pornography in their teens. Most of people in their current 20s/30s, especially the ones with unrestricted internet access has been through it. There’s probably some sort of addiction problem, but I don’t think this will anyhow fix it.

It was a lot harder when it was on a scrambled TV signal and you shared a computer with everyone.