National
Newsom: Supreme Court defeat would trigger new ballot measure
Calif.’s lieutenant guv speaks out on Prop 8, Barney Frank and more
California Lt. Gov. and former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom says a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage would prompt the California Legislature to place a pro-marriage equality referendum on the ballot in 2014.
In an exclusive interview with the Washington Blade on Tuesday, after attending the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the Prop 8 case, Newsom said he is confident the court will strike down Prop 8. He said he’s hopeful but less confident that the high court will issue a broader decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states.
But Newsom predicted that a “worst case scenario” ruling upholding Prop 8 would trigger an immediate backlash in the LGBT community in California and among the state’s pro-marriage equality lawmakers. This would lead to placing a Prop 8 repeal measure on the ballot, most likely in the 2014 election cycle, he said.
“I don’t know if I want to use the word shock because that’s a little hyperbolic,” he said in describing the reaction to a decision leaving Prop 8 in place. “But that backlash would immediately precipitate a ballot measure that most likely in this case…the legislature would put that on the ballot,” he said.
“It would require two-thirds of the legislature. There is two-thirds of the legislature now that supports marriage equality,” he said.
“So you wouldn’t even have to get the signatures,” Newsom added. “And I think that would immediately happen. And we would put on a campaign to end all campaigns. And we would win quite handily in 2014.”
Newsom told the Blade he has no regrets over his highly controversial decision in 2004 to use his authority as San Francisco mayor to direct the city to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples before any court or state governmental body gave the go-ahead for such marriages.
In February 2004 Newsom himself performed the first of the city-authorized same-sex nuptials in a City Hall ceremony that drew national and international press coverage. The couple joined in marriage in that ceremony was longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lion and Del Martin, who were in their 80s.
“[T]hat one couple, Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, became 4,036 additional couples from 46 states,” Newsom said, noting that other same-sex couples came to San Francisco from eight countries to get married.
“And it wasn’t just the couples,” he said. “What was so profound about that in February 2004 were the mothers and fathers and the brothers and sisters and the grandparents and grandkids that all assembled there – tens of thousands of people celebrating life, celebrating love, celebrating marriage.”
Less than a year later, however, gay marriage opponents succeeded in obtaining a court ruling barring Newsom and San Francisco authorities from performing same-sex marriages. The ruling also declared all of the same-sex marriages performed by the city as invalid.
Critics of Newsom’s decision to authorize the marriages, including then-U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who’s gay, blamed Newsom for playing into the hands of anti-gay groups seeking to ban same-sex marriage through state constitutional amendments.
Close to a dozen such amendments passed through ballot measures that year, and some political pundits said the ballot measures helped Republican George W. Bush win the 2004 presidential election by drawing conservative voters to the polls in larger than usual numbers.
Newsom and LGBT activists who supported his decision to authorize the San Francisco marriages say the action boosted efforts to challenge California’s ban on same-sex marriage in the state courts. In early 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the state’s constitution, opening the way for same-sex couples to marry throughout the state.
But voters overturned the court’s decision in November 2008 when they approved Proposition 8. Subsequent court challenges to Prop 8 resulted in it coming before the U.S. Supreme Court in Tuesday’s oral arguments.
Newsom said he was troubled by the criticism he received, especially criticism form Frank, who he says he deeply respects as an LGBT rights advocate.
“So I respectfully disagree with him,” Newsom told the Blade. “And I think there’s thousands and thousands of people who came to San Francisco who would respectfully disagree with him.”
According to Newsom, his and his city’s decision to permit same-sex marriages led to marriage equality advances in subsequent years.
“I think it required shaking things up a little bit because I think just waiting around for the courts…we could take 30 years, 40 years,” he said. “And I think in many ways what we did certainly inspired the California Supreme Court.”
Following is a transcript of Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s interview with the Washington Blade:
Washington Blade: What were your thoughts on how the arguments went on Tuesday as you observed them in the Supreme Court chambers?
Gavin Newsom: It’s a humbling experience any time you listen to oral arguments at the Supreme Court because in most every instance history is being made. And to see this arc over the last nine, 10 years and to see the progress that’s been made, public opinion shifting and knowing what’s at stake for California and Californians but also for the country in its prospects on marriage equality, it was a pretty wonderful experience.
Blade: Did you have a sense of which direction the justices may go?
Newsom: We all come in with our preconceived biases. I’ve long felt that the narrow decision was most likely, although I confess that I got caught up in the spirit of the times in the last two months, hoping perhaps the issue and the arguments persuade a broader, national conversation.
That clearly didn’t happen in the courtroom at least. It certainly happened in the briefs, but not in the courtroom in terms of the oral arguments. So I left with that as a caveat of disappointment but realizing an hour or so later, reflecting on it, that it went as well as I could ever have hoped a few months ago.
And I feel stronger now that the likelihood of Prop 8 being struck down has grounded itself in the oral arguments either on standing, which everyone seemed to be coveting. It was interesting, the focus on that, or on the limited, narrow question of the Ninth Circuit.
Blade: Are you sensing the court may rule on the narrow issue of allowing same-sex marriages in California but not in other states?
Newsom: Yeah, I think it’s more likely than not. I want to be surprised and I desperately want to be wrong because I think this is a fundamental civil right. It’s a constitutional right. And it should be afforded every American, not just Californians. And so I really do hope I’m wrong. But based on the passing reference, ironically, from [Justice Antonin] Scalia – the notion of 50 states being impacted by this decision – I walked away feeling that’s less likely. Again, I hope I’m wrong.
Blade: Are you basing that also on what some of the more liberal and progressive justices were saying?
Newsom: Yeah. Even [Justice Sonia] Sotomayor’s own comments – I was sort of struck by that. I hope people were playing devil’s advocate, and that’s often the case with this court. So perhaps that was a reflection of that point of view or at least that kind of Socratic engagement with the attorneys.
But you know, this idea that you can let states decide the rights of a minority is preposterous to me. I mean, it just flies in the face of our history. If you submit the rights of a minority to the whims of the majority you’ll get what we’ve historically gotten. And that’s oppression of the minority rights. And I just don’t accept it.
Blade: You have been involved with this from the outset or at least since 2004. Could you say a little about what you were thinking when you shook up a lot of people by having San Francisco perform same-sex marriages at that time before any court declared they were legal? Weren’t you the first to perform one of those marriages for a lesbian couple at City Hall?
Newsom: I guess I was, certainly from an elective office. So there’s no doubt about that. You know, it’s interesting. We wanted to put a human face on it, period. And you know what? Frankly, that was the one thing – if there was anything that sat with me [on Tuesday] it was how little we talked about the human element here at the [U.S. Supreme] court. And I understand that. My father is a judge. This is a courtroom. There are legal briefs. But with the exception of [Justice Anthony] Kennedy, who brought up children into the courtroom, which I thought was significant and telling. I thought it was an important take away in terms of where Kennedy may be.
You know, what we did in 2004 was I didn’t want to listen to President Bush out there on the campaign trail supporting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage…
But that one couple, Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, became 4,036 additional couples from 46 states. It was truly nationalized. It was not a local issue in San Francisco – 46 states and eight countries – and it wasn’t just the couples. What was so profound about that in February 2004 were the mothers and fathers and the brothers and sisters and grandparents and grandkids that all assembled there — tens of thousands of people celebrating life, celebrating love, celebrating marriage.
And it deepened my connection to not only the issue but to the community and my passion for equal rights. And I was struck by how many of my fellow Democrats ran, didn’t walk, from the issue in 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8. And only until recently have we seen a cascade of leadership which is fabulous, from [New York Governor Andrew] Cuomo and [Maryland Governor Martin] O’Malley to the president himself and others elected who are showing courage now. And I’m humbled by that now. But I’m frustrated a bit that it took even this long because we were having a lot of private conversations, and they weren’t disclosing publicly. There’s nothing worse than politicians saying one thing privately and doing another thing publicly.
Blade: Are you saying they were saying they supported marriage equality privately but not publicly?
Newsom: Yeah – in most cases. And they were just worried about their political career. I get that. But you know what? I like the politicians that are worried about the people they claim to represent more than they do their own political future. That’s sort of my argument on this assault weapons discussion right now. It kind of gets me a little angry – that people are worried more about their own elections than the faces of those kids in Newtown.
Blade: Then Congressman Barney Frank was among those that said your decision to perform same-sex marriages as mayor of San Francisco led to the passage of the state ballot measures banning same-sex marriage and raised the threat of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage passing in Congress.
Newsom: You know, I’m not going to – he’s gone out of his way to say that over and over again. And I’ll continue to go out of my way to celebrate his leadership in terms of LGBT rights. I don’t even belong in the same room as he in terms of what he’s done for the community. So I respectfully disagree with him. And I think a lot of people do. And I think there’s thousands and thousands of couples who came to San Francisco who would respectfully disagree with him.
And I think it required shaking things up a little bit because I think just waiting around for the courts – one off here, one off here – we could take 30 years, 40 years. And I think in many ways what we did certainly inspired the California Supreme Court [to declare same-sex marriages legal]. So I would hope that Congressman Frank sees that. But he’s long expressed his condemnation of what I did and continues to do so for whatever reason.
Blade: On the other hand, Evan Wolfson, head of the same-sex marriage advocacy group Freedom to Marry, has said pushing for marriage equality, even if it leads to setbacks, changes the hearts and minds of the public and leads to advances in the long run.
Newsom: Yeah – and I’ve talked to – and this sounds preposterous – but I’ve had the privilege of talking to people overseas that said this had an impact on their decision-making in Europe and their leadership there when they saw the human face and they saw those images. So I’m with Evan. I’ve long admired Evan. And you’re not kidding. He was out there in the early ‘90s. So he’s one of my heroes and one of the heroes of the movement. But there are many. I just left Rob Reiner. He was a huge supporter of what we did in 2004 and, of course, sponsored so much of the good work that Ted Olsen just did and is doing and Boies and Chad Griffin. It’s just incredible. Our own city attorney, Dennis Herrera, he put together a great team — Theresa Stuart. There’s so many champions and heroes in the fight. And I respect Barney Frank, but he wasn’t in the courtroom today and a lot of folks were, and they deserved to be and I respect their advocacy.
Blade: Now that you’re in a statewide office as lieutenant governor, do you have a sense of what kind of repercussions there might be in California and the nation as a whole if the Supreme Court rules either for or against marriage equality? What about the people of the eastern part of California, who seem to be so different politically than the people of San Francisco or L.A.?
Newsom: You’re not kidding. I’ll be out there tomorrow. I’ll be in the Modesto Central Valley area at 1 o’clock tomorrow. The old frame of California used to be north and south. And you just hit it on the head. It’s increasingly now coastal-inland-east-west. The politics is radically different in the central part of the state.
I think most pundits, and they may, in hindsight, dismiss this assertion. But I’ll tell you that I can point to almost every pundit in California that said I could never get elected statewide in California because of my support of same-sex marriage. And we proved them wrong. Though candidly, I didn’t know they would be wrong. I thought it was questionable as well.
In some parts of our state they’re particularly conservative. So there will be repercussions, absolutely. But you now see – and I never read the polls in 2004 because if I did I never would have done what I did because it was partly unpopular even in San Francisco.
The polls today are two to one in favor of marriage equality in California – two to one in the recent polls. So I think the repercussions will be negligible at best.
Across the country, you know this. You write about this. You guys have been at this forever. This is not even Republican-Democrat any more. It’s generational and it’s overwhelming. You cannot deny the generational component. So these guys are holding on – the opponents – they’re just holding on. I don’t want to say this is the last gasp because I think some states will hold on for a much longer time unless the courts intervene.
But this is a tsunami, a generational tsunami that 80 percent of 30-year-olds or younger [support marriage equality]. This court – I hope they – they’re human beings. I wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of history on this. If I’m a relatively young judge like [Chief Justice John] Roberts, why do you want to be on the wrong side of history when it comes to a civil right?
Blade: Will you be going to the DOMA case tomorrow?
Newsom: I wish I could. I’ve got to head back to my events in the Central Valley. But I feel confident. The good news about DOMA is it kind of hits these guys on both sides of the ideological aisle. From a federal perspective, this is federalism and states’ rights on the right. And then on the left we can make similar arguments that we made today. I feel a little more confident on DOMA, though I feel equally confident in both cases. Although, again, I think it’s going to be a narrow decision on Prop 8 and then a repeal of DOMA outright.
Blade: If Proposition 8 were to somehow go back to the voters are you optimistic that it wouldn’t pass and marriage equality would prevail?
Newsom: To be candid with you, the backlash would exist there. I think there would be an intense response if the [Supreme Court] overturned the Ninth Circuit [U.S. Court of Appeals in California that ruled against Prop 8]. I don’t know if I want to use the word shock because that’s a little hyperbolic. But that backlash would immediately precipitate a ballot [measure] that most likely in this case – and this is one of the interesting facts of California right now – I think the legislature would put that on the ballot. It would require two-thirds of the legislature. There is two-thirds of the legislature now that supports marriage equality. So you wouldn’t even have to get signatures. And I think that would immediately happen.
And we would put on a campaign to end all campaigns. And we would win quite handily in 2014. So eventually even in the worst case scenario we would win at the ballot box, I believe. But the impact of that, I think, would be intensely felt across the country.
And I think, frankly, if I were opposed to marriage equality I’d be more worried about that because I think the backlash would inspire, with intensity, aggressive movements to overturn not just Prop 8 in California but all across the country in those 31 constitutional restricted states, etc.
Blade: Marriage equality advocate Robin Tyler of L.A. told us this week that she feels Prop 8 helped the LGBT cause and marriage equality because it energized and activated the LGBT community like never before and helped bring on the recent successes in passing same-sex marriage laws in several states. Do you agree with that assessment?
Newsom: I agree with that generally. I’ll never forget. I was so intimately involved in that. My image was used against our campaign or against our efforts. And whether we like it or not, it was a painful thing. The backdrop was we were celebrating Obama’s win at the same time we were lamenting Prop 8’s victory.
And people were stunned in many ways. We saw it coming in the last two weeks of the campaign when the polls started to shift. So some of us on the inside weren’t as surprised. But I think the general consensus was one of shock. And it really did galvanize people to say, you know what? If California can legally grant same-sex marriage and in California see them take it away, my gosh, we’ve got to wake up every state and get organized with great intensity. So I think she’s right.
I think you saw a lot of great work done across the country that built up the momentum in New York and Maryland and got us where we were in Maine and Washington State and, of course, all the other legislative victories on civil unions. But you’re right, it was painful. And guys like Congressman Frank could say, ‘Look, I told you so’ after the blowback with all those state constitutional amendments. But that’s the nature of the right struggle, good days and bad days.
And now we’re leaning into history in a very positive way and I hope and like to think it’s much faster than it would have been if we just sat back passively and waited our time and got permission. Some people argue we all need permission. David Boies also needed permission to do what they did. And I’m glad they didn’t wait. I’m glad they did what they did. And I’m glad we did what we did. So good people can disagree and history will judge.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court declines to hear case over drag show at Texas university
Students argue First Amendment protects performance
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear a First Amendment case over a public university president’s refusal to allow an LGBTQ student group to host a drag show on campus.
The group’s application was denied without the justices providing their reasoning or issuing dissenting opinions, as is custom for such requests for emergency review.
When plaintiffs sought to organize the drag performance to raise money for suicide prevention in March 2023, West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler cancelled the event, citing the Bible and other religious texts.
The students sued, arguing the move constituted prior restraint and viewpoint-based discrimination, in violation of the First Amendment. Wendler had called drag shows “derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny,” adding that “a harmless drag show” was “not possible.”
The notoriously conservative Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who former President Donald Trump appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, ruled against the plaintiffs in September, writing that “it is not clearly established that all drag shows are inherently expressive.”
Kacsmaryk further argued that the High Court’s precedent-setting opinions protecting stage performances and establishing that “speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend” was inconsistent with constitutional interpretation based on “text, history and tradition.”
Plaintiffs appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is by far the most conservative of the nation’s 12 appellate circuit courts. They sought emergency review by the Supreme Court because the 5th Circuit refused to fast-track their case, so arguments were scheduled to begin after the date of their drag show.
Federal Government
EXCLUSIVE: USAID LGBTQ coordinator visits Uganda
Jay Gilliam met with activists, community members from Feb. 19-27
U.S. Agency for International Development Senior LGBTQI+ Coordinator Jay Gilliam last month traveled to Uganda.
Gilliam was in the country from Feb. 19-27. He visited Kampala, the Ugandan capital, and the nearby city of Jinja.
Gilliam met with LGBTQ activists who discussed the impact of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, a law with a death penalty provision for “aggravated homosexuality” that President Yoweri Museveni signed last May. Gilliam also sat down with USAID staffers.
Gilliam on Wednesday during an exclusive interview with the Washington Blade did not identify the specific activists and organizations with whom he met “out of protection.”
“I really wanted to meet with community members and understand the impacts on them,” he said.
Consensual same-sex sexual relations in Uganda were already criminalized before Museveni signed the Anti-Homosexuality Act. Gilliam told the Blade he spoke with a person who said authorities arrested them at a community meeting for mental health and psychosocial support “under false pretenses of engaging in same-sex relations and caught in a video that purportedly showed him.”
The person, according to Gilliam, said authorities outed them and drove them around the town in which they were arrested in order to humiliate them. Gilliam told the Blade that prisoners and guards beat them, subjected them to so-called anal exams and denied them access to antiretroviral drugs.
“They were told that you are not even a human being. From here on you are no longer living, just dead,” recalled Gilliam.
“I just can’t imagine how difficult it is for someone to be able to live through something like that and being released and having ongoing needs for personal security, having to be relocated and getting support for that and lots of other personal issues and trauma,” added Gilliam.
Gilliam said activists shared stories of landlords and hotel owners evicting LGBTQ people and advocacy groups from their properties. Gilliam told the Blade they “purport that they don’t want to run afoul of” the Anti-Homosexuality Act.
“These evictions really exacerbate the needs from the community in terms of relocation and temporary shelter and just the trauma of being kicked out of your home, being kicked out of your village and having to find a place to stay at a moment’s notice, knowing that you’re also trying to escape harm and harassment from neighbors and community members,” he said.
Gilliam also noted the Anti-Homosexuality Act has impacted community members in different ways.
Reported cases of violence and eviction, for example, are higher among gay men and transgender women. Gilliam noted lesbian, bisexual and queer women and trans men face intimate partner violence, are forced into marriages, endure corrective rape and lose custody of their children when they are outed. He said these community members are also unable to inherit land, cannot control their own finances and face employment discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
US sanctioned Ugandan officials over Anti-Homosexuality Act
The U.S imposed visa restrictions on Ugandan officials shortly after Museveni signed the law. The World Bank Group later announced the suspension of new loans to Uganda.
The Biden-Harris administration last October issued a business advisory that said the Anti-Homosexuality Act “further increases restrictions on human rights, to include restrictions on freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly and exacerbates issues regarding the respect for leases and employment contracts.” The White House has also removed Uganda from a program that allows sub-Saharan African countries to trade duty-free with the U.S. and has issued a business advisory for the country over the Anti-Homosexuality Act.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Dec. 4, 2023, announced sanctions against current and former Ugandan officials who committed human rights abuses against LGBTQ people and other groups. Media reports this week indicate the U.S. denied MP Sarah Achieng Opendi a visa that would have allowed her to travel to New York in order to attend the annual U.N. Commission on the Status of Women.
Museveni, for his part, has criticized the U.S. and other Western countries’ response to the Anti-Homosexuality Act.
Gilliam noted authorities have arrested and charged Ugandans under the law.
Two men on motorcycles on Jan. 3 stabbed Steven Kabuye, co-executive director of Coloured Voice Truth to LGBTQ Uganda, outside his home while he was going to work. The incident took place months after Museveni attended Uganda’s National Prayer Breakfast at which U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) spoke and defended the Anti-Homosexuality Act.
The State Department condemned the attack that Kabuye blamed on politicians and religious leaders who are stoking anti-LGBTQ sentiments in Uganda. Gilliam did not meet with Ugandan government officials while he was in the country.
“We in the U.S. government have already made it clear our stance with government officials on how we feel about the AHA, as well as broader human rights concerns in country,” said Gilliam. “That’s been communicated from the very highest levels.”
The Uganda’s Constitutional Court last Dec. 18 heard arguments in a lawsuit that challenges the Anti-Homosexuality Act. It is unclear when a ruling in the case will take place, but Gilliam said LGBTQ Ugandans with whom he met described the law “as just one moment.”
“Obviously there is lots of work that has been done, that continues to be done to respond to this moment,” he told the Blade. “They know that there’s going to be a lot of work that needs to continue to really address a lot of the root causes and to really back humanity to the community.”
Gilliam further noted it will “take some years to recover from the damage of 2023 and the AHA (Anti-Homosexuality Act) there.” He added activists are “already laying down the groundwork for what that work looks like” in terms of finding MPs, religious leaders, human rights activists and family members who may become allies.
“Those types of allyships are going to be key to building back the community and to continue the resiliency of the movement,” said Gilliam.
Texas
Pornhub blocks Texas accessing site over age verification law
Court battle forced statute to take effect
Aylo (formerly MindGeek) the largest global adult online entertainment conglomerate, owned by Canadian private equity firm Ethical Capital Partners, has restricted access to its platforms including its flagship Pornhub in Texas after a court battle forces the state’s age verification law to take effect.
Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton had appealed a U.S. District Court decision that enjoined him from enforcing House Bill 1181. Paxton and others argued that purveyors of obscene materials online needed to institute reasonable age-verification measures to safeguard children from pornography.
A week ago the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially vacated the original injunction, ruling that the age verification requirements are constitutional.
“Applying rational-basis review, the age-verification requirement is rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in preventing minors’ access to pornography,” the three judge panel of the 5th Circuit explained. “Therefore, the age-verification requirement does not violate the First Amendment.”
While the court vacated the injunction against the age-verification requirement of the statute, it upheld the lower court’s injunction against a separate section of the law that would require pornography websites to display a health warning on their landing page and all advertisements.
The Houston Chronicle reported people who go to the site are now greeted with a long message from the company railing against the legal change as “ineffective, haphazard, and dangerous.” The company calls for age verification by the makers of devices that let people on the internet, instead of individual websites.
Age verification legislation was enacted in several states in 2023 in addition to Texas, including North Carolina, Montana, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah and Virginia.
The new laws require users to provide digital confirmation via a certified approved third party vendor like London-based digital identity company Yoti. The other possibility would be a state approved digital ID such as the California DMV’s Wallet app, which contains a mobile driver’s license.
Users accessing Pornhub from within Louisiana are presented with a different webpage that directs them to verify their age with the state’s digital ID system, known as LA Wallet. The law passed in 2022 subjects adult websites to damage lawsuits and state civil penalties as high as $5,000 a day if they fail to verify that users are at least 18 years old by requiring the use of digitized, state-issued driver’s licenses or other methods.
The Associated Press reported this past October that an adult entertainment group’s lawsuit against a Louisiana law requiring sexually explicit websites to verify the ages of their viewers was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Susie Morgan in New Orleans.
Potential or existing Pornhub users in North Carolina and Montana are directed to a video that features adult film star Cherie DeVille, who recites a message also written under the video.
“As you may know, your elected officials in your state are requiring us to verify your age before allowing you access to our website. While safety and compliance are at the forefront of our mission, giving your ID card every time you want to visit an adult platform is not the most effective solution for protecting our users and in fact, will put children and your privacy at risk.”
“Mandating age verification without proper enforcement gives platforms the opportunity to choose whether or not to comply,” the statement continues. “As we’ve seen in other states, this just drives traffic to sites with far fewer safety measures in place.”
“Until a real solution is offered, we have made the difficult decision to completely disable access to our website in [the aforementioned locales]” the message ends with.
The company previously blocked Utah on May 7, 2023. CNN reported at the time:
Affected users are shown a message expressing opposition to Senate Bill 287, the Utah law signed by Gov. Spencer Cox in March that creates liability for porn sites that make their content available to people below the age of 18.
“As you may know, your elected officials in Utah are requiring us to verify your age before allowing you access to our website,” the message said. “While safety and compliance are at the forefront of our mission, giving your ID card every time you want to visit an adult platform is not the most effective solution for protecting our users, and in fact, will put children and your privacy at risk.”
Courthouse News reported that after Virginia’s bill was passed in June, state Sen. L. Louise Lucas, a Democrat, criticized the state for not creating a system for age verification, and instead leaving it up to websites to manage the process, citing security risks.
“We passed a bill during this session to protect children from online porn. However the executive branch had an obligation to create a system for age verification,” Lucas said on X, formerly Twitter. “We will continue our work to keep pornography out of the hands of minors … but we will also work to ensure that this Governor’s error does not put the privacy of Virginians at further risk.”
Beyond the U.S. in the European Union, Pornhub and two more of the world’s biggest porn websites face new requirements in the European Union that include verifying the ages of users, under the EU’s Digital Services Act.
According to a December 20 report from the Associated Press, Pornhub, XVideos and Stripchat have now been classed as “very large online platforms” subject to more stringent controls under the Digital Services Act because they each have 45 million average monthly users, according to the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch.
They are the first porn sites to be targeted by the sweeping Digital Services Act, which imposes tough obligations to keep users safe from illegal content and dodgy products, the Associated Press reported last month.
In addition to the adult entertainment websites, any violations are punishable by fines of up to 6% of global revenue or even a ban on operating in the EU. Some 19 online platforms and search engines have already been identified for stricter scrutiny under the DSA, including TikTok, Amazon, Facebook, Instagram, Google and more.
-
Commentary4 days ago
Sexting with younger guy has me asking: How queer am I?
-
Commentary5 days ago
What will you do to make Pride safe this year?
-
Texas4 days ago
Pornhub blocks Texas accessing site over age verification law
-
Africa3 days ago
Burundi’s president reiterates LGBTQ people should be stoned in a stadium