Supreme Court: Kids deserve protection from porn, period
The Supreme Court last week delivered not just a legal decision but a resounding moral affirmation: Children deserve protection from online pornography.
For decades, I’ve been told that “free speech” includes the right to exploit. I’ve watched Big Porn hide behind the First Amendment like a shield, as if this billion-dollar industry, built on addiction, abuse, and shattered innocence, was a sacred American institution. But on Friday, in upholding Texas’ pornography age-verification law, the court drew a line in the sand.
For children, exposure to pornographic material isn’t a neutral event. It reshapes the brain. It numbs empathy. It seeds confusion, fear, and addiction.
And I say: Thank God.
As the brother of a child survivor of sexual exploitation, I know firsthand the consequences of a culture that normalizes sexual harm. I know what it’s like when an industry like porn sees children as commodities. I’ve seen too many young people stumble into the world of violent, degrading content with nothing more than a click. No gatekeepers. No warnings. No protection.
That ended last week.
Texas’ age-verification law was never about silencing speech. It was about defending the voiceless and restoring the most basic responsibility we have as a society: to guard our children from harm.
That’s why my team at Jaco Booyens Ministries joined this case as a friend of the court. Our team submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that shared the lived experiences of survivors, the neurological science on childhood trauma, and the irrefutable consequences of exposure to online pornography.
As our brief stated in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton: “There is no liberty in trauma. There is no freedom in addiction. When minors are exposed to pornography, they are not exercising constitutional rights, they are being wounded by the unchecked rights of others.”
Still, the porn industry screamed “censorship.” Companies sued, claiming this was a violation of their “rights.” But what about our children’s right not to be harmed? What about the parents fighting to keep predators out of their homes?
The court acknowledged what every honest parent already knows: Access to this kind of content isn’t harmless. It isn’t “education.” It is psychological, emotional, and spiritual violence. During oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett captured the heart of the issue when she asked, “Why should it be so easy for a 12-year-old to access this kind of material online, when we all know it can be incredibly damaging?”
That wasn’t a rhetorical flourish; it was a recognition of truth.
For children, exposure to pornographic material isn’t a neutral event. It reshapes the brain. It numbs empathy. It seeds confusion, fear, and addiction. I can no longer pretend this is just about speech. This is about harm. Real harm. And the court, at long last, chose to see it.
RELATED: Supreme Court slaps down Big Porn — putting kids before profit
Photo by Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
I can’t change what happened to my sister. But I can fight to make sure it doesn’t happen to someone else. I can help protect the next generation. I can work to make it harder for exploitation to find its way into our living rooms, our schools, our smartphones. I can help make justice more than just a word. I can help make it action.
To the justices who stood with us: Thank you. You did not bow to corporate pressure. You honored the Constitution as a document of liberty, not license. You remembered that freedom must be rooted in truth, and the truth is that unrestricted pornography destroys lives.
This victory isn’t just for Texas; it’s a win for every child in America. It sends a clear message to every state in this nation: You have the power to protect your children. You can draw the line. You don’t have to wait for permission. And beyond our borders, this ruling sends a powerful global signal: I still believe — and I know many others do too — that children are worth protecting, that their innocence is not up for sale, and their safety is not negotiable.
Let this ruling be a turning point — for our families, for our faith, for our future.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett humiliates Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over her apparent ignorance of American law
It was a rough day for liberals both on and off the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court sided in Mahmoud v. Taylor with Maryland parents who want to protect their children from LGBT propaganda in Montgomery County Public Schools. This ruling enraged non-straight activists, including the Human Rights Campaign, which called the decision "devastating."
In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the Supreme Court upheld the Lone Star State's age verification law protecting children from pornography. Activists called the ruling "wrongheaded" and "invasive."
The Supreme Court indicated in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that the national injunctions weaponized against the Trump administration by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts." Democrats melted down over the ruling, calling it "deplorable" and "a vile betrayal of our Constitution."
The court ruled 6-3 in each of these cases, and in all three, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was in the dissenting minority.
Not only did Jackson not get her way, her apparent ignorance and judicial freewheeling was exposed for all to see in CASA, where she noted in a dissenting opinion that the majority's decision not only "diverges from first principles" but is "profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate."
'In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court's opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment.'
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who delivered the opinion of the court in CASA, noted that Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent focused on "conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity." Jackson, on the other hand,
chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a 'mind-numbingly technical query' ... she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.
Barrett noted that her untethered colleague apparently believes both that "the fundamental role of courts is to 'order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop,'" and that "if courts lack the power to 'require the Executive to adhere to law universally' ... courts will leave a 'gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound.'"
RELATED: MASSIVE VICTORY: SCOTUS sides with parents; Alito nukes LGBT indoctrination campaign
Sarah Silbiger-Pool/Getty Images
The former Notre Dame Law School professor tried to make sense out of Jackson's position, though admitted that it was "difficult to pin down."
Barrett suggested that Jackson either believes that universal injunctions are appropriate whenever a defendant is part of the executive branch — a position that "goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions" — or, "more extreme still," that "the reasoning behind any court order demands 'universal adherence,' at least where the Executive is concerned."
"In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court's opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment," wrote Barrett. "Once a single district court deems executive conduct unlawful, it has stated what the law requires. And the Executive must conform to that view, ceasing its enforcement of the law against anyone, anywhere."
Barrett proceeded to insinuate that former President Joe Biden's DEI appointee was ignorant of the relevant American legal history and precedent and may have skipped analysis of relevant readings because they involved "boring 'legalese.'"
"We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," wrote Barrett.
Although she would not dwell on Jackson's understanding, Barrett nevertheless pointed out that the liberal justice "decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
‘Colossal Abuse Of Power’: Trump Slams Judicial Coup As SCOTUS Reins In Lower Courts
Justice Barrett Takes A Flamethrower To KBJ’s Reality-Challenged Dissent In Birthright Citizenship Case
Jonathan Turley, John Yoo Team Up To Pummel Justice Jackson’s Claim SCOTUS Ruling Will Be Fatal Blow For Rule Of Law
'This is not that important a case'
Amy Coney Barrett Goes Right At The Jugular Of Biden’s DEI SCOTUS Justice
The public knows she's not very bright
It’s Not Too Late For Amy Coney Barrett To Be The Reliable Originalist America Needs
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories