Ethan Oppenheim | Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton

While it is uncontested that the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause protects political speech, it is contested as to how far in scope the clause extends to protect sexual or obscene material such as pornography. Historically, the Supreme has distinguished between obscene sexual material and non-obscene sexual material, treating the former as outside the scope of the First Amendment and the latter as within the scope. Thus, the Court treats non-obscene sexual content as constitutionally protected to the fullest extent for adult consumers, while permitting that it may be rationally restricted for minors. Id. While legislatures may permissibly limit minors “access to sexual content, laws that consequently burden adults” access to such content “can stand only if [they] satisf[y] strict scrutiny.” United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000); Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 665-66 (2004); Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 874 (1997); Sable Commc’ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989).