Justice Elena Kagan submitted a different opinion that was accompanied by Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan said that the court applied strict control in comparable cases, “a very rigorous but not fatal form of constitutional assessment, on laws that regulate protected speech based on its content.”
“The law of Texas defines speech through content and tells people who have the right to see that speech that they have to do this,” wrote Kagan. “That is, according to our first amendment law, a direct (non -incidental) speech rule based on its content – that requires a strict study.”
The Texas law applies to websites in which more than a third of the content “sexual material is harmful to minors.” Kagan described the ID statement of the law as a deterrent for exercising the rights of the first amendment.
“It's all about information about yourself and your viewing habits about – responsible speech Many find disgusting – to a website operator, and then to … who knows? The operator could sell the information; the operator can be hacked or summoned,” said Kagan's different opinions. The law requires that website users verify their age by submitting an identification issued by the government, such as a driver's license or 'transaction data' in connection with things such as a job or mortgage, “Kagan wrote.
Limiting no more speech than necessary
Under strict investigation, the court must ask whether the law is “the least limiting means of achieving a mandatory state interest,” Kagan wrote. A state with which it must be demonstrated that it has no longer limited speech with adults than is necessary to achieve its goal.
“Texas can of course take measures to prevent minors from viewing obscene-for-children's speech. But if a different schedule than HB 1181 can achieve that objective and better protection of adults, Texas should take over (or at least a good reason not),” Kagan wrote.
The majority decision said that the application of strict control “would be questioned all Leed-verification requirements, even long-term personal requirements. “It also said that the earlier statements in the different crowd” had involved all the laws that forbidden Both minors and adults to gain access to speech that was maximum obscene, only for minors. The court has never considered whether the more documents suffer from an age verification requirement caused strict research. “
