Justice Elena Kagan recorded an disagreeable opinion, which was joined by Sonia Sotomore and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan said that in similar cases, the court strictly investigated, “for laws regulating the protected speech based on its content,” not a highly rigid but fatal form of constitutional review. ,
“Texas’s law defines speech by content and deserves people deserved to see that speech that they must take a cost to do so,” Kagan wrote. “This is, under our first amendment law, a direct (not casual) regulation of speech based on its content – which demands strict investigation.”
The Texas law applies to websites that have more than one third of the material “harmful sexual materials for minors.” Kagan described the requirement of law ID as a preventer to exercise someone’s first amendment rights.
Kagan’s dissatisfaction said, “It is changing information about the habits of itself and your own – many people for a website operator, and then … who knows? Who knows the website users in the law, such as the” identity issued by the government “such as the driver’s license or ‘transaction data’, such as a job or ‘transactional data’, needs to be verified by presenting ‘transactions’.
Limit out speech
Under strict investigation, the court should ask whether the law “is the lowest restrictive means of attaining a compelling state interest,” Kagan wrote. A state facing that standard should show that no more adult speech is limited to achieve its goal.
“Texas may definitely take measures to prevent minors from watching obscene-for–old speech. But if a plan besides HB 1181 can fulfill that purpose and protect the freedom of better adults before better adults, Texas should adopt it (or at least some good reasons should not be displayed),” Kagan was written.
The majority decision said that implementing strict investigation will “call in question All Age-consciousness requirements, even prolonged in-tradition requirements. “It also said that dissatisfaction has been cited in the previous ruling” all involved laws Ban on Both minors and adults reaching speech were the most vulgar for minors only. The court has never admitted before whether the more minor burden of the need for aging triggers a strict investigation. ,
