From today's long decision in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Colmenero, by Judge David Alan Ezra (W.D. Tex.) (see here for excerpts from the part of the decision that strikes down the separate age-verification requirement):
In addition to the age verification, H.B. 1181 requires adult content sites to post a "public health warning" about the psychological dangers of pornography. In 14-point font or larger, sites must post:
TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WARNING:
Pornography is potentially biologically addictive, is proven to harm human brain development, desensitizes brain reward circuits, increases conditioned responses, and weakens brain function.
TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WARNING:
Exposure to this content is associated with low self-esteem and body image, eating disorders, impaired brain development, and other emotional and mental illnesses.
TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WARNING:
Pornography increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography.
Although these warnings carry the label "Texas Health and Human Services," it appears that the Texas of [sic] Health and Human Services Commission has not made these findings or announcements.
Finally, the law requires that websites post the number of a mental health hotline, with the following information:
1-800-662-HELP (4357) THIS HELPLINE IS A FREE, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SERVICE (IN ENGLISH OR SPANISH) OPEN 24 HOURS PER DAY, FOR INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILY MEMBERS FACING MENTAL HEALTH OR SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS. THE SERVICE PROVIDES REFERRAL TO LOCAL TREATMENT FACILITIES, SUPPORT GROUPS, AND COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS.
The court held that these requirements were unconstitutional speech compulsions.
Although H.B. 1181 targets for-profit websites, the speech it regulates is likely non-commercial [in the sense of not just being commercial advertising -EV]…. "[S]exual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment." At the outset, then, doctrines surrounding commercial speech disclosures likely do not apply, because the law regulates First Amendment-protected activity beyond "propos[ing] a commercial transaction." …
{Speakers who promote the regulated subject matter must … place disclosures on [both] their advertisements and landing pages.} Defendant is on slightly stronger footing as to the requirements for advertisements, but the Court still finds them to be inextricably intertwined with non-commercial speech….
Volokh v. James (S.D.N.Y. 2023) is helpful. There, the court dealt with a requirement that certain online platforms create a mechanism to file complaints about "hateful speech" and disclose the policy for dealing with the complaints. The court found that the disclosures did not constitute commercial speech because "the policy requirement compels a social media network to speak about the range of protected speech it will allow its users to engage (or not engage) in." The court noted that "lodestars in deciding what level of scrutiny to apply to a compelled statement must be the nature of the speech taken as a whole and the effect of the compelled statement thereon." "Where speech is 'inextricably intertwined with otherwise fully protected speech, it does not retain any of its potential commercial character.'" Like Volokh, the law targets protected speech based on its content outside of commercial applications. The lessened commercial speech standard does not apply.
Such speech compulsions related to the content of speech (and not just of commercial advertising), the court held, had to be judged under "strict scrutiny," a very demanding constitutional test; and they failed such scrutiny:
They require large fonts, multiple warnings, and phone numbers to mental health helplines. But the state provides virtually no evidence that this is an effective method to combat children's access to sexual material. The messages themselves do not mention health effects on minors. And the language requires a relatively high reading level, such as "potentially biologically addictive," "desensitizes brain development," and "increases conditioned responses." Quite plainly, these are not disclosures that most minors would understand. Moreover, the disclosures are restrictive, impinging on the website's First Amendment expression by forcing them to speak government messages that have not been shown to reduce or deter minors' access to pornography.
The court also held that the compulsions would be unconstitutional even if viewed as focused on commercial speech, in part because:
[T]he relaxed standard for certain compelled disclosures applies if they contain "purely factual and uncontroversial information." … [But] the disclosures are deeply controversial….
The Court assumes, at the preliminary injunction stage, that the health disclosures—as opposed to the mental health hotline—are "purely factual." Regardless of their accuracy, the health disclosures purport to show scientific findings. The mental health line, however, is not factual. It does not assert a fact, and instead requires companies to post the number of a mental health hotline. The implication, when viewers see the notice, is that consumption of pornography (or any sexual material) is so associated with mental illness that those viewing it should consider seeking professional crisis help. The statement itself is not factual, and it necessarily places a severe stigma on both the websites and its visitors.
Much more seriously, however, is the deep controversy regarding the benefits and drawbacks of consumption of pornography and other sexual materials. Just like debates involving abortion, pornography is "anything but an uncontroversial topic." Defendant's own exhibit admits this. (Principi article, Dkt. # 27, at 2 ("Scientific evidence supporting the negative effects of exposure to [sexually explicit internet material] is controversial, and studies addressing this topic are difficult because of important methodological discrepancies.")). As a political, religious, and social matter, consumption of pornography raises difficult and intensely debated questions about what level and type of sexual exposure is dangerous or healthy. The intense debate and endless sociological studies regarding pornography show that it is a deeply controversial subject. The government cannot compel a proponent of pornography to display a highly controversial "disclosure" that is profoundly antithetical to their beliefs.
Beyond the differing moral values regarding pornography, the state's health disclosures are factually disputed. Plaintiffs introduce substantial evidence showing that Texas's health disclosures are either inaccurate or contested by existing medical research. Dr. David Ley, for example, is a clinical psychologist in the states of New Mexico and North Carolina who specializes in treating sexuality issues. As Ley states, "There currently exists no generally accepted, peer-reviewed research studies or scientific evidence which indicate that viewing adult oriented erotic material causes physical, neurological, or psychological damage such as 'weakened brain function' or 'impaired brain development.'" Included in Ley's declaration are more than 30 psychological studies and metanalyses contradicting the state's position on pornography.
Moreover, Ley points out that the mental health hotline number is unsupported because the standard manual of classification of mental disorders, the DSM-5-TR, does not consider pornography addiction as a mental health disorder, and in fact, explicitly rejected that categorization as unsupported in 2022. (Finally, the hotline, which links to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration helpline, will be of little to no aid because they are likely not trained to deal with pornographic use or addiction.)
Defendant, meanwhile, introduces evidence suggesting that pornography is dangerous for children to consume. One study of boys in Belgium, for example, suggests that "an increased use of Internet pornography decreased boys' academic performance six months later." Another meta-analysis suggests that pornography is harmful to adolescents but encourages parental intervention alongside content filtering to mitigate these harms. These studies, however, are inapplicable to the compelled disclosures, which make no mention of the effects on children and are primarily targeted at adults.
Each portion of the compelled message is politically and scientifically controversial. This is a far cry from cigarette warnings. Unlike cigarettes, pornography is the center of a moral debate that strikes at the heart of a pluralistic society, involving contested issues of sexual freedom, religious values, and gender roles. And the relevant science, shows, at best, substantial disagreement amongst physicians and psychologists regarding the effects of pornography….
The post Court Also Strikes Down "Public Health Warning" for Porn Sites appeared first on Reason.com.
