Whoops—Ohio Accidentally Excludes Most Major Porn Platforms From Anti-Porn Law
Ohio lawmakers set out to block minors from viewing online porn. They messed up.

Remember when people used to say "Epic FAIL"? I'm sorry, but there's no other way to describe Ohio's new age verification law, which took effect on September 30.
A variation on a mandate that's been sweeping U.S. statehouses, this law requires online platforms offering "material harmful to juveniles"—by which authorities mean porn—to check photo IDs or use "transactional data" (such as mortgage, education, and employment records) to verify that all visitors are adults.
But lawmakers have written the law in such a way that it excludes most major porn publishing platforms.
You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.
"This is why you don't rush [age verification] bills into an omnibus," commented the Free Speech Coalition's Mike Stabile on Bluesky.
Ohio Republican lawmakers introduced a standalone age verification bill back in February, but it languished in a House committee. A similar bill introduced in 2024 also failed to advance out of committee.
The version that wound up passing this year did so as part of the state's omnibus budget legislation (House Bill 96). This massive measure—more than 3,000 pages—includes a provision that any organization that "disseminates, provides, exhibits, or presents any material or performance that is obscene or harmful to juveniles on the internet" must verify that anyone attempting to view that material is at least 18 years old.
The bill also states that such organizations must "utilize a geofence system maintained and monitored by a licensed location-based technology provider to dynamically monitor the geolocation of persons."
Existing Ohio law defines material harmful to juveniles as "any material or performance describing or representing nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse" that "appeals to the prurient interest of juveniles in sex," is "patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for juveniles," and "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value for juveniles."
Under the new law, online distributors of "material harmful to juveniles" that don't comply with the age check requirement could face civil actions initiated by Ohio's attorney general.
Supporters of the law portrayed it as a way to stop young Ohioans from being able to access online porn entirely. But the biggest purveyors of online porn—including Pornhub and similar platforms, which allow users to upload as well as view content—seem to be exempt from the law.
Among the organizations exempted from age verification requirements are providers of "an interactive computer service," which is defined by Ohio lawmakers as having the same meaning as it does under federal law.
The federal law that defines "interactive computer service"—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—says it "means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions."
That's a bit of a mouthful, but we have decades of jurisprudence parsing that definition. And it basically means any platform where third parties can create accounts and can generate content, from social media sites to dating apps, message boards, classified ads, search engines, comment sections, and much more.
Platforms like Pornhub unambiguously fall within this category.
In fact, Pornhub is not blocking Ohio users as it has in most other states with age verification laws for online porn, because its parent company, Aylo, does not believe the law applies to it.
"As a provider of an 'interactive computer service' as defined under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it is our understanding that we are not subject to the obligations under section 1349.10 of the Ohio Revised Code regarding mandated age verification for the 'interactive computer services' we provide, such as Pornhub," Aylo told Mashable.
I'm assuming that the exclusion of Pornhub was not intentional, given the way this law's supporters talked about it as a shield against Ohio minors being able to see any sexually oriented material online. One of the law's biggest proponents, state Rep. Josh Williams (R–Sylvania), has talked about how it would not ensnare social media platforms even though they may contain porn, so perhaps the exclusion of interactive computer services was intended for that purpose. But most major web-porn access points, including OnlyFans and webcamming platforms, also fall under the definition of interactive computer service.
I doubt this will be the end of the story. Perhaps Ohio lawmakers will amend the exceptions—although that may prove a bit difficult to do on its own, since the state was having trouble moving forward with a standalone age verification law. Or perhaps the Ohio Attorney General will be foolish enough to challenge the idea that Pornhub is an "interactive computer service."
For now, though, we can add this to ever-crowded annals of "lawmakers trying to regulate tech and the internet without understanding tech and the internet."
More Sex & Tech News
Why women should be tech optimists: Jerusalem Demsas on self-driving cars, e-bikes, and how to pitch women on new technology. "Technology isn't just about pushing the frontier. It's about making people's lives better," she writes.
Generic abortion pill gets green light from federal authorities: The U.S. Food and Drug administration has approved another generic version of mifepristone.
Self-driving cars are "a miracle drug," writes Derek Thompson. "So, why are so many progressive cities trying to prohibit Waymo cars, as if they were fentanyl on wheels?" Thompson continues:
Timothy Lee writes that a number of Democratic-leaning states "are considering proposals to restrict or ban the deployment of driverless vehicles." In a recent hearing before the Boston City Council, City Councilor Julia Mejia declared her "strong opposition" to Waymo cars; City Councilor Benjamin Weber found it "concerning to hear that the company was making a detailed map of our city streets without having a community process beforehand" (sorry, what?); and City Councilor Erin Murphy announced legislation requiring that a "human safety operator is physically present" in all driverless cars, which would make the current offering from Waymo technically illegal.
Feel the irony: Partisans blocking a healthy, life-saving technological invention due to fanatical precautions about unintended effects. These Democrats are the mirror image of vaccine-skeptic conservatives who stand athwart progress yelling stop in the realm of therapeutics. If anti-vax Republicans are turning into the party that hates medical progress for tribal reasons (e.g., a toxically conspiratorial attitude toward everything), anti-Waymo Democrats are in danger of becoming the party that hates software progress for their own clichéd reasons (e.g., a toxically cautionary approach to any change involving the physical environment).
ICE is watching you post: Federal contracting records show that "immigration authorities are moving to dramatically expand their social media surveillance, with plans to hire nearly 30 contractors to sift through posts, photos, and messages—raw material to be transformed into intelligence for deportation raids and arrests," reports Wired. "The initiative is still at the request-for-information stage, a step agencies use to gauge interest from contractors before an official bidding process. But draft planning documents show the scheme is ambitious: [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] wants a contractor capable of staffing the centers around the clock, constantly processing cases on tight deadlines, and supplying the agency with the latest and greatest subscription-based surveillance software."
Today's Image

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Online porn consumers were about to beat the system, amongst other things.
The law should have stopped a few strokes earlier.
Pr0n addicts were pulling for a happy ending.
They don't beat around the bush.
Authorities were trying to yank these websites iff the internet.
Or parents could take responsibility for their children and leave everybody else of it. That could happen, too.
By that logic, brick-and-mortar porn stores should not be required to require ID from customers.
What about checking the ID of members?
Checking the birth date on a drivers' license in person is entirely different from collecting and storing personal info online.
Except that the way to check ID today is to scan it. Which is storing the information.
Cite?
I've never had nor seen someone digitally scan an ID for any in-person transaction. They do a quick look at the birth date and might glance at the picture.
It’s done at some grocers for alcohol sales. They scan the license instead of just looking at the date.
In IL for online tobacco and in person THC/CBD sales scanning the ID barcode is required (even to enter the premises) and, in a twist only retards can't comprehend, storing the personal information is forbidden.
But again, we're literally talking about the depths of stupidity of people who are OK with private retailers taking your birth date off of a GOVERNMENT-ISSUED ID but are worried about the government otherwise attaining the information contained in a GOVERNMENT-ISSUED ID... and ONLY when it comes to sexualizing children.
I've never had nor seen someone digitally scan an ID for any in-person transaction.
So you aren't even aware of the surveillance state when it comes to firearm or even ammo sales or transfers, alcohol or tobacco sales, edibles, car rentals, signing up for a credit card or phone service or even an email account or any of a dozen or more *other* restricted items... you're only aware and concerned about being surveilled when it applies to selling porn to minors.
I wish I could say I was surprised.
Ctrl+f 'storing': 3 results.
Just because you fervently wish for porn producers and payment processors to be storing your information and that the law would make them do so, does not mean they are storing your information nor required to.
As with ENB, one would wonder why you are being so dishonest.
I routinely send my kids to the gas station to fetch me beer, cigs, and the latest copy of Juggs.
Just like my pappy before me.
We should, then, do away with all laws involving gun control. Let you be responsible for yourself and leave everybody else out of it.
Yes. We should.
Because every single one of them is an explicit violation of the Constitution.
As are all 'obscenity laws'.
no one cares
The federal law that defines "interactive computer service"—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—says it "means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions."
Section 230? You mean the one that explicitly says it doesn't preempt criminal law and prevents states from pursuing civil, but not criminal liability? Even at that, the Section 230 that by your own retarded precepts *didn't* protect backpage.com? That Section 230?
It's almost like you don't have the least fucking clue what the law means or intends to mean and are simply grasping at straws.
Platforms like Pornhub unambiguously fall within this category.
As you selectively quoted it, no-shit murder-for-hire advertising sites would fall within the "any platform where third parties can create accounts and can generate content, from social media sites to dating apps, message boards, classified ads, search engines, comment sections" category.
Which is why the actual law, if you ever bothered to read it, specifically doesn't exempt federal and local crimes (making it ultimately redundant at best and at worst, an implicit second-take end-around the 1A).
"Jerusalem Demsas on self-driving cars, e-bikes, and how to pitch women on new technology. "Technology isn't just about pushing the frontier. It's about making people's lives better," she writes."
"Women --- haven't curbs made you their bitches long enough?"
These Democrats are the mirror image of vaccine-skeptic conservatives who stand athwart progress yelling stop in the realm of therapeutics.
"How To Lose Readers And Embarrass Yourself to BOAF SIDEZ! of Political Divide!" - Elizabeth Nolan Brown
Are you taking the side of vaccine authoritarians telling women what to do with their bodies or the side of autonomous vehicle companies making sure that women aren't allowed to drive "for safety reasons"?