Texas Attorney General Sues PornHub for Alleged Age Verification Failures

Alright National Report Court back in session as you take a live look in Dallas, Texas. For today's case, courtesy of Earth. Can we take a live look this morning where the attorney General and that state Ken Paxton is suing hubs. Parent company Silver allegation that it's violating state law by failing to implement age verification measures to ensure Children cannot access the adults only site. Pakistan once hub and other adult websites to roll out and age verifications have stunned that would allow access only to those who are able to prove they have a government issued I D and that they are er the age of 18. So we're taking up the case now in National Report court with Amanda Maki. She is an attorney, and Eric Schwartz, right, a criminal defense attorney. Now, for the purposes of today's segment, Amanda, you will represent Attorney General Paxton Eric will be defending hub and its parent company, Pillow. Alright, So let's dive in if we can, And thanks for being here we have the press release announcing the lawsuit, and it reads as this quote global run several of the largest websites that host obscene materials, including hub instead of abiding by Texas law requiring purveyors of have seen sexual material to institute aged verification systems. The company immediately presents miners who access their websites with pornographic content. And that from the press release, Amanda, can you walk us through the case here brought on by the Texas attorney general. Absolutely Look, we are a country of laws and Texas absolutely has the ability to implement laws that it believes will protect the citizens of the state and the attorney general is doing what is in the best interests of the state and of the Children of the state by protecting them from online. Potentially predators and others with these pornographic websites . So the law in the state of Texas and in other states throughout America is that you have to demonstrate that you are of the age of majority 18 years old and I Lo has demonstrated that they are not in fact doing that, and the law only requires reasonable measures to demonstrate age and so they haven't taken that. At all into doing or implementing, And so of course, the state attorney general is doing what is in the best interests of the state and is suing them potentially $10,000 a day for the violations , and I'll owe has to demonstrate how they are abiding by the law, which they are not Alright, Eric, I'll Oh, they ended up not commenting on this suit. Are these claims of violation of free speech rights? Can you walk us through what the defense would be for these websites? Good morning. First of all, Sean Christina, you're gonna make me have to sleep on the couch again for having to take the side, Mark National Report sent a guy who was arrested for acting in an Elmo student got a breach of the peace. But I will accept your challenge this morning. So let's let's start with this. That's interest of the Children. Of course, we don't want Children. Watching corn, not a good thing. But is protected under the first Amendment. How do you get rid of? If you're not feeling well from an ulcer? Will you punch yourself in the in the head and you give yourself a headache? Because one headache or one issue if you have a problem or an ailment is going to give you another element. So if we put these restrictions on there, which there should be restrictions, but the restrictions where we should collect data from people that want to exercise their First Amendment and adults go to these site, and we're collecting and saving and storing their information. Toral identification that is dangerous . It's dangerous that people get a hold of that. It's dangerous that the government knows who's watching and has a list. So we have to be smart about this, so I'll know wants to go. Adhere to the requirements and they're doing so and Arkansas and Utah where the only way those states have passed a law where it's required that you use the I D. They have blocked access in those states, where users from the States cannot even access to sites. But here we have to look at the strictest scrutiny Test is this law overbroad is the act itself vague and a lot of that is and lawyers they get. A lot of people don't like lawyers, and we get paid lots of money arguing over that term. Reasonable. What are reasonable restrictions so certainly No for Children, but it has to be in a way where we are not creating another problem. I mean, and I've seen in the legal term means different things to different people, but legally it is protected under the First Amendment, we can get into the specifics of the age verification or lack thereof on the side, as argued by the A G. The lawsuit. Also states quote Amanda even when the defendant's website require and quote, enter button to be pressed That button is often displayed with a sample of the sexual material published or distributed on the website. The age verification methods used by defendants on their website cannot set to verify anything at all, and holy failed to comply with the requirements of Chapter 129 B Amanda this point about the inter button. How heavy does that play in this suit? Oh, it's not sufficient, and that's the point is that yes , there are First Amendment rights. Of course, we're all aware of that. However the Supreme Court has placed restrictions like time place and manner and other restrictions to demonstrate that you can't just have full blanc access to saying and doing whatever you want. You can't scream fire in a movie theater, for example, so there are many examples. The Supreme Court has laid out that doesn't allow For that, So we do have restrictions. Some restrictions on First Amendment rights, and the courts have sided with the state of Texas and with other states, and so merely pressing a button is not sufficient. You have to demonstrate that this person Is 18 is a job majority and therefore can access the website. We're not saying Don't access were just saying we need to protect our Children and make sure that they're not getting on there. Eric if you had a crystal ball, where do you see this case going? Do you think that Texas will just or that poor novel end up just blocking access to their website for people in Texas? I mean, I think that could happen with depending on what happens in the lawsuit. Remember, there's already been a ruling from a federal court declaring this law and constitutional and now there's been an injunction by another court staying that so where this goes, I don't know. But here's the problem here. Let's be very clear Children and . They do not go together. That should not happen when you when you drive in Texas, on highways or here in Florida, where I am we have billboards for adult sites for adult places, exists, and there's always going to be. It's protected. Children shouldn't be there, but we need to have device requirements. The government should not be able to get a list where someone should be able to steal this. Who's watching corners looking at it people that view. They don't really want people knowing that they view and you can't out them and you'll have people's identities stolen. So let's not create a headache to get rid of an ulcer. Very interesting points there. Amanda Mackey. Eric Schwartz, right, If you could stand by, we have Tom Borelli is a Newsmax contributor, joining us to play judge and jury. For this edition of National Report court. Tom, You've been listening to both sides of the argument. Where do you fall today? I certainly hear the free speech argument by Eric and I also hear the points by Amanda about protecting Children . And at the end of the day, I'm gonna go with Amanda and I think hub and their owner should be smart about this. I understand Eric's point that nobody wants their name to be associated with. But oh, by the way, the Internet everybody could find out anything anyway. So Just putting your driver's license out there doesn't mean you. No one's going to find out. But these companies should be smart. Because if they don't take restrictions are gonna get sued. Just like cigarette companies got sued, just like alcohol companies get sued, So I think it's an accompanies actual best interest to be proactive because of the court of public opinion. They're going to lose so they should take reasonable restrictions really on their own, which Eric probably already knew. But brave enough to take on that side of the case. We don't want Yahoo gavel. I underst Stand when I lost him. I'm now sleeping on the couch there. You got that? Look we appreciate all of you here. Yeah Don't Amanda Mac