AVN’s Michael McGrady wrote an interesting article in the Alabama Politica Reporter about the new anti-porn bill HB164. I wanted to discuss it.

In the heart of Alabama, a new legislative proposal is sparking debate and raising eyebrows. House Bill 164 (HB164), championed by Representative Ben Robbins of Sylacauga, is on the brink of scrutiny by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This bill, cloaked in the noble intention of protecting minors, introduces stringent age verification requirements for online pornography providers that cater to Alabama’s residents. Yet, beneath its surface, HB164 harbors implications that could stretch far beyond its purported goals, possibly entangling Alabama in a web of legal battles and tarnishing its national image.

HB164 draws its essence from similar legislative endeavors seen in Texas, where age verification laws for adult content have been embroiled in contentious litigation. The bill’s journey mirrors that of Pornhub, which, in response to Texas’s legal landscape, took the drastic step of blocking all Texan IP addresses—a move that resonated with anti-porn activists and far-right political circles. However, the underlying assumption of HB164—that pornography is inherently a public health crisis—lacks robust scientific and medical backing, casting doubt on the bill’s foundational claims.

Robbins’s bill boldly ventures into constitutionally murky waters by requiring adult websites to carry public health warnings akin to those on tobacco and alcohol products. These warnings, casting pornography as a nemesis of mental health and brain development, lack consensus from leading public health organizations. Notably, the American Psychiatric Association has yet to recognize porn addiction in its diagnostic manual, suggesting that perceived addiction often stems from cultural and spiritual guilt rather than clinical dependency.

The bill’s approach to mandating disclaimers and labels on adult content websites is a leap towards compelled speech, a direction that federal courts have historically scrutinized. A federal district judge in Austin, Texas, previously blocked a similar law, highlighting the constitutional quandary of forcing companies to endorse statements not universally accepted as factual. This precedent hints at the potential constitutional challenges HB164 might face, particularly if it echoes Texas’s legal pitfalls.

Moreover, HB164’s proposition to register adult companies with Alabama, mandating them to maintain age and consent records accessible to law enforcement, seems redundant. Federal regulations already obligate adult entertainment providers to comply with record-keeping requirements, making Alabama’s additional layer of bureaucracy an unnecessary duplication that could stifle the industry.

The narrative woven by HB164 is reminiscent of the Reagan-era “Meese Report,” a document criticized for its biased and moralistic view on pornography, devoid of industry voices. This historical echo raises concerns about repeating past mistakes where ideological zeal overshadows pragmatic regulation, potentially infringing on First Amendment rights.

Alabama stands at a crossroads, with an opportunity to chart a new course that balances the protection of minors with the preservation of free expression. The unfolding debate over HB164 is more than a local legislative matter; it is a national dialogue on censorship, public health, and the boundaries of government intervention in the digital age.

As Alabama legislators ponder the future of HB164, the nation watches, waiting to see if Alabama will heed the lessons of history or tread a path fraught with legal and ethical quandaries. Then again, it’s Alabama, so you know where this is probably headed.

You can follow Michael McGrady on Twitter at @AVNmikeoffical. He writes some amazingly insightful pieces about the current happenings in our industry. And be sure to follow Fleshbot on Twitter at @Fleshbot.