Kerby Anderson
Pornography and porn sites were the topic of the Supreme Court earlier this month. The key question was whether requiring age verification on a porn site violates the First Amendment.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is the case currently before the high court. Texas passed a law requiring porn purveyors to start using “reasonable age verification methods.” Other states (Arkansas, Louisiana, Virginia, Utah) have passed similar porn site age laws.
The Texas brief explains that the law “does not prevent adults from viewing pornography.” Instead, the law “requires online pornographers to take commercially reasonable steps to ensure that their customers are not children.”
The lead challenger in the case is the Free Speech Coalition. It is described as an “adult entertainment” industry group that argued that age verification is too great a burden on First Amendment rights. They also raised concerns about privacy and security risks.
Having a 21st century Supreme Court ruling on pornography is important. The court’s ruling in pornography and obscenity in Miller v. California came in 1973. Texas cites the case Ginsberg v. New York that dealt with selling magazines to minors, but that decision came down in 1968.
Technology has changed the world in the last two decades. Young people have access to pornography through computers and smartphones. The most recent survey found that a clear majority of children have a smartphone by age 11.
Here are two points I believe the justices should consider. First, children should be protected from the scourge of pornography. We know the dangers. Second, digital age verification is becoming common place. It places no significant burden on First Amendment rights.

Kerby Anderson
Charles Cooke recently asked, “Are Californians Near the Tipping Point?” He asked that question because of the reaction from many in Southern California to how politicians handled the devastating wildfires.
He begins by saying that he loves California and explains that he isn’t just saying that because he is about to criticize many of the political leaders in California. He devotes many sentences to list the many positives about the state and its citizens.
He then focuses on how California is badly run. He also says that isn’t just because he disagrees politically with California politicians. He explains that he doesn’t agree with the politics of Massachusetts, but he acknowledges that Massachusetts is “pretty solidly governed.”
With those two disclaimers out of the way, he concentrates on what California does poorly. The state “is run by people who are incompetent at the tasks of taxing and spending, passing and enforcing laws, representing their constituents, and dealing with emergencies.”
Put another way, “its politicians have forgotten how to do the basics. One can get away with a great deal of ideology, wastefulness, and self-indulgence if the schools are good, the roads are smooth, the police are allowed to do their jobs, the housing is affordable, and the natural disasters are addressed swiftly and sanely.”
Charles Cooke isn’t the only person wondering if California voters are at a tipping point. Of course, it is too early to tell if a disaster in 2025 will affect an election in 2026 or 2028. But we have seen how a poor performance in a presidential debate last year changed everything in the 2024 elections.
I predict that a big issue in future elections will be competence. Voters might be willing to get rid of incompetent politicians.