1. United States
2. Letter

Recently, the FTC held a meeting claiming that the Internet has caused irrevocable harms to children, and it's now a known fact they are attempting to push the Court into an unconstitutional ruling in favor of Texas. They claim that such a ruling would be a 'good ruling', and that any arguments made in favor of the Free Speech Coalition would 'run against the interests of the agency'. The current FTC forgets that strong precedent and evidence exists for a ruling in favor of FSC. Precedents include, but are not limited to NetChoice v. Yost, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, NetChoice v. Uthmeyer, Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft, and Reno v. ACLU. Yes, the Constitution does not explicitly say that pornography is protected, but the First Amendment was made so that government cannot regulate speech, even if that speech is not moral or politically correct. The focus should be on preventing government from regulating speech and not on whether pornography is morally acceptable. The FTC claims age verification isn't about restricting access but ensuring only adults can make contracts with platforms. This argument falls flat on its face when it is taken into consideration that minors enter into contracts as well, with legal differences between whether they can or can't dismiss them. No one is arguing that children don't suffer harms online or offline for that matter. The problem lies with the reality of age verification implementation on a governmental scale. There's no way for adults to access adult content without compromising security, privacy and dignity by submitting to constant intrusive scans and age verification. Clean up of most platforms and sites is already in place thanks to a section of Section 230, which encourages takedowns of obviously illegal content and keeping children out of adult spaces. Trust and safety teams handle reports of abuse and illegal content, and although they are not perfect, they get it right about 90 percent of the time. Ruling against strict scrutiny for AV laws would allow for more abuses of data, rights and privacy, AV has consistently been ruled against not because judges don't care about children, as they most likely have them, but because the First Amendment's protections extend far beyond 'acceptable speech'. The FTC is arguing for kids AND adults to have their data stolen, their lives exploited, and their experiences dampened by activists who dislike the First Amendment and common sense. Rule against Texas and in favor of strict scrutiny.