Free-speech advocates have sued Louisiana officials to stop the enforcement of new laws that would require adult-content websites to verify that their Louisiana users are at least 18 years old.
The California-based Free Speech Coalition and other plaintiffs filed the federal lawsuit June 20 in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The complaint argues that two measures recently signed by Gov. John Bel Edwards violate the First and 14th Amendments because they are impermissibly vague and impose a prior restraint on speech.
In 2021, the Legislature passed a measure allowing private lawsuits against adult entertainment sites that do not impose age-verification measures, such as the use of Louisiana-issued digitized licenses issued by the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles. In June, Edwards signed a bill allowing the state government to impose fines of up to $5,000 per day on such websites if they fail to use age-verification methods.
“We support efforts to prevent minors from accessing adult material, but the law, as written, is unconstitutional, ineffective and dangerous,” Mike Stabile, spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, told the Louisiana Record in an email. “... The vast majority of Louisianans have been unwilling to use the new age-verification system out of fear that their sensitive browsing history will be exposed. Given the recent hack of the DMV, which manages digital IDs, that doesn't seem entirely unwarranted.”
The prospect of a state government determining what content people can access in their own homes should be of concern to everyone regardless of political background, Stabile said.
“Whether or not one likes adult content, it is protected speech, and the government does not have the right to create unreasonable barriers for adults to access otherwise legal speech, where less intrusive barriers — such as device-level filters on phones and tablets — exist to protect minors,” he said.
The new Louisiana laws also violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause because they exempt certain news organizations and draw “impermissible content-based distinctions” among those engaged in free speech, according to the lawsuit.
“Providers (including plaintiffs) are in the untenable position of abiding by the acts’ terms and enduring the constitutional infringement, or violating them and risking private lawsuits and substantial civil penalties,” the complaint says.