Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (23-1122)

argument 23-1122

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

Supreme Court of the United States 2h 5m 8 speakers 7 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the opening argument about the Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case twenty three eleven twenty two free speech coalition versus Paxton. Mr. Schaefer.

Unknown 0:08

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. In this case, a Fifth Circuit majority held that mere rational basis review, the most lax form of judicial scrutiny, applies to a Texas law that burdens constitutionally protected speech based on its content, specifically by imposing an age verification barrier before anyone can access a sexually themed website. That aberrant holding defies this Court's consistent precedent, including its Ashcroft decision, as Judge Higgenbotham well explained in his dissent. This court should begin by confirming that strict scrutiny continues to apply to any such content based burden on websites and their adult users. Notably, Texas's law is even more problematic than its failed federal predecessors.

Unknown 0:52

It applies to entire websites, depending on whether one third of their content is deemed inappropriate for minors. It also brands websites with stigmatizing, unscientific, so called health warnings that despite being enjoined, evidence and Texas's intention to deter adults, even assuming they have cleared the age age verification hurdle, from accessing protected speech. To abandon strict scrutiny here, Your Honors, could open the door to an emerging wave of regulations that imperil free speech online. From there, this court can readily restore the preliminary injunction, given petitioners' likelihood of success under strict scrutiny. The district court found that this law's age verification provisions are wildly underinclusive and unduly chilling.

Unknown 1:37

At the same time, content filtering today affords at least one alternative that is both less restrictive and more efficacious. Ashcroft teaches that our preliminary injunction should stand in precisely these circumstances. That result, Your Honors, does not denigrate government's compelling interest in protecting children. Nor does it prevent Texas from trying to carry its burden between now and final judgment or from enacting a new and better tailored law. Rather, reinstating the preliminary injunction would simply maintain fidelity to First Amendment rights and precedents while litigation proceeds. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:12

Uh can uh age verification systems ever be found constitutional?

Unknown 2:17

Justice Thomas, I think a s uh government should start with content filtering is a less restrictive. Well I

Clarence Thomas 2:22

but uh can age verification ever be constitutional?

Unknown 2:27

I don't think the court sh needs to close the door to that here, but it would need to be tailored age verification of the sort that the Amiki supporting Texas are advocating, which is different from what Texas's law permits.

Clarence Thomas 2:38

And what would that look like?

Unknown 2:39

I think, Your Honor, what you have from the Amiki is that there are ways of verifying age short of identifying the individual, short of the transactional data that Texas would require be provided. And so you would have less identification of the individual. You would have privacy protections that are maximally assured by the law. You would have private rights of enforcement that you do not have here. Everything depends upon the Attorney General who is avowedly hostile. To these websites and to their users. And last, Justice Thomas, you should have confidentiality that is legally assured, and the State should be providing assurance that it will not misuse the information that is being collected pursuant to the State mandate.

Unknown 3:19

None of those features are present in Texas's approach to age verification. And tellingly, you have nothing in the legislative record, you have nothing from Texas, even in its submissions to this Court that shows how the specific provisions of H B one hundred eight one have been tailored with sensitivity to the privacy concerns that exist in this context, or for that matter, to actually being efficacious and making sure that you have meaningful protections that protect client that protect minors across the board. And so your honors, w if if if we start with strict scrutiny,