On January 15, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a case that underscores the urgent need to protect children from harmful online content. At its core, this case challenges Texas House Bill 1181, which requires age verification for accessing explicit online material. This law is not about infringing on First Amendment rights—it is about shielding vulnerable minors from the long-term psychological, emotional, and developmental harm caused by premature exposure to explicit content.

As advocates for child safety at Jaco Booyens Ministries (JBM), we filed a brief of amici curiae with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of HB 1181, emphasizing its necessity in today’s unregulated digital environment. Our work highlights the growing crisis posed by the widespread and unintended exposure of minors to explicit content online. Children today face a digital world far removed from the protections of physical spaces. Once, explicit materials were kept out of reach in bookstores and convenience stores. But in today’s algorithm-driven digital landscape, children as young as 12 are exposed to explicit content without warning or oversight. Studies done by the University of New Hampshire revealed that 93% of boys and 62% of girls encounter pornography online before their 18th birthdays, often unintentionally. This exposure is not only a matter of accidental clicks; it is the result of algorithms prioritizing engagement over safety, leading children toward harmful material.

The implications are devastating. Research from the American Psychological Association and the Journal of Adolescent Health has shown that early exposure to pornography can lead to increased rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm, and even disordered eating. Adolescents internalize distorted notions of intimacy, self-worth, and relationships, often feeling shame and confusion. The neurological effects are equally concerning, with studies likening the impact on developing brains to substance addiction, rewiring neural pathways in ways that impair judgment and increase compulsive behaviors.

Critics of HB 1181 argue that it infringes on free speech and privacy. However, the law aligns with long-standing public policy throughout the United States, which has been that minors cannot purchase or obtain explicit or obscene material. This principle was affirmed in Ginsberg v. New York (1968), where the Supreme Court upheld restrictions on the sale of obscene materials to minors, recognizing the state’s compelling interest in safeguarding children. Similarly, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) reinforced the government’s authority to regulate indecent content in public media spaces. These rulings reflect a consistent judicial acknowledgment that minors require unique protections. 

Opponents also claim that parental controls should suffice. However, this argument overlooks the harsh reality of modern digital platforms. Children frequently encounter harmful content through school-provided resources, social media, and online ads, bypassing even the most vigilant parental safeguards. According to The Wall Street Journal, algorithms on platforms like Instagram have directed teens searching for terms such as “fitness” to harmful accounts that promote eating disorders and distorted body image ideals. Without robust age-verification systems in place, minors remain vulnerable within an unregulated digital ecosystem that prioritizes engagement over safety. 

HB 1181 does not seek to censor lawful adult content; rather, it enforces a boundary that mirrors protections already in place in physical spaces. It ensures that age-appropriate safeguards extend into the digital realm, where children spend an increasing amount of time. By implementing measures like age verification, the law empowers parents, supports educators, and holds digital platforms accountable for the well-being of their youngest users.

The stakes of this case transcend Texas. Upholding HB 1181 would set a precedent for other states to follow, creating a cohesive framework to protect minors across the nation. It would send a clear message that society values the safety and development of children over commercial interests. Conversely, striking down the law would leave millions of children vulnerable to exploitation, mental health crises, and developmental harm.

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the welfare of children and the foundational principles that safeguard our society. By supporting HB 1181 and recognizing the overwhelming evidence we presented in our amicus brief, the Court can uphold a law that protects minors from harmful content and strengthens the partnership between parents, legislators, and digital platforms in prioritizing child safety.

Upholding HB 1181 would not only protect minors from harmful content but would also reinforce the notion that digital spaces must prioritize safety and accountability. As a society, we owe it to our children to ensure that they grow up in environments—both physical and digital—that nurture their potential and protect their innocence.

For these reasons, the Court should uphold HB 1181 and set a powerful precedent for protecting minors in the digital age.

This is a commentary published with the authors’ permission. If you wish to submit a commentary to Texas Scorecard, please submit your article to submission@texasscorecard.com.

Jaco Booyens

Founder of Jaco Booyens Ministries, an anti trafficking organization working to protect American children from predatory forces.

RELATED POSTS