Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Sex

Sex Educators Say They're Being Harmed by Age Verification Laws

Plus: Wisconsin governor vetoes porn age-check bill, more charges for penis protester, the Komodo dragon theory of social media, and more...

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 4.6.2026 11:45 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Classroom setting, with a hand holding a smartphone with an age verification message | Nandovidal81/Dreamstime/Envato
(Nandovidal81/Dreamstime/Envato)

"Oh, so you want kids to look at pornography?" That's the absurd accusation often thrown at people who oppose age verification mandates for online adult content. Opponents of these laws counter that actually this is about adult free speech: Grown-ups should be able to create, publish, and view constitutionally protected erotic content without undue burden or infringement on their privacy. And indeed, that's the message Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers put forth recently when vetoing an age verification law in his state.

But there's another important—if less prevalent—argument against the age verification laws sweeping so many states: They may ensnare way more than just pornography. Enacted as regulations of any content "harmful to minors," these could be used against sex educators, sexual health organizations, reproductive freedom groups, sex worker rights advocates, transgender rights advocates, and queer creators of all sorts.

You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

"If you let them ban porn, they will call you pornographic when they ban you," Bluesky user @ghostingdani.bsky.social posted recently. Replace "ban" with "put special, burdensome regulations on," and the same applies here.

A new poll from the Woodhull Freedom Foundation hints at some of the unintended consequences (or, some might speculate, intended albeit unspoken consequences) of these age verification mandates. In March, the sexual freedom advocacy group conducted a national survey "of sex educators and other sexual health professionals" to see how age verification laws aimed at adult content were affecting them.

This was a small initial survey, with just 56 respondents, so do not take this as the final word on anything. But nearly a fifth of the sex educators surveyed (18 percent)—and a third of those working in states with age verification laws in effect—said these mandates had already impacted their work in some way. The vast majority of sex educators (76 percent) and a majority of sexual health professionals (53 percent) said they were concerned about what these laws would do down the road.

Hopefully we'll find out more on the subject soon. "Woodhull plans to expand the survey's reach this spring to better understand how different populations and practices are being affected by these laws," the group said in a press release.

It's an urgently needed inquiry. Around half of U.S. states have now passed rules requiring that sexually oriented web platforms to check IDs or engage in some other form of state-approved age verification.

The copycat popularity of these mandates makes Evers' veto in Wisconsin extra-surprising (and admirable). Evers refused to sign an age verification bill (A.B. 105) for online, sexually oriented material on privacy and free speech grounds.

"I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to the bill's intrusion into the personal privacy of Wisconsin residents," Evers wrote in his veto message. "While I agree that we should protect children from harmful material, this bill imposes an intrusive burden on adults who are trying to access constitutionally protected materials."

The governor pointed out that the "sensitive, personally identifiable information" websites would have to collect under this bill could be sold to the government or "intercepted by or transmitted to a third party and used as the basis for blackmail or identity theft."


In the News: More Charges for Penis Protester  

Throwing the book at an inflatable penis: Renea Gamble protested against President Donald Trump in an inflatable penis costume last fall and got arrested for it. Authorities in Fairhope, Alaska, charged Gamble with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. "In Fairhope and around the country, many people were outraged at the cops' manhandling of a grandmother in her 60s. But it also seemed obvious that the case would go away once cooler heads prevailed," writes Liliana Segura at The Intercept. Not so:

Instead, the city of Fairhope doubled down. Rather than dropping the case, the city attorney slapped Gamble with additional charges earlier this year: disturbing the peace and giving a false name to law enforcement. Her trial, first set to take place months ago, has been delayed multiple times. It is now set for April 15….

To Gamble, who has turned down media requests while her prosecution is pending, the case is about much more than her individual rights.

"What Renea has been saying all along is that it's not so much about her," said [Gamble's lawyer, David] Gespass. "It's the Constitution and the First Amendment that are on trial."


On Substack

It's Komodo dragons all the way down: In a new Silver Bulletin post titled "Social media is turning into a freak show," Nate Silver shares the following chart, displaying X's most-engaged-with accounts:

Silver Bulletin

 

"There's a principle in ecology known as the island effect," Silver comments, where "in an isolated environment, strange things tend to happen":

There are all sorts of weird mutations that might not be survivable in a more competitive environment that can actually become fitness advantages on an island. Big animals tend to get smaller, and small animals tend to get bigger—like the Komodo dragon, whose range is limited to a few isolated islands in Indonesia.

That's basically what Twitter looks like now, "only with Catturd and the Gavin Newsom Press Office accounts locked in combat instead of a couple of (cute?) lizards."


Read This Thread

Indicators of Major Psychiatric Problems Didn't Improve After Youth Gender-Transition Treatment In Finland—They Rosehttps://t.co/sCoefigLeN
The study, which was based on comprehensive nationalized health data and included control groups, calls into question the claim that such… pic.twitter.com/ET0QboibSF

— Benjamin Ryan (@benryanwriter) April 5, 2026

Ryan's thread delves into the new findings as well as sharing some criticism of them.


More Sex & Tech News

Love to see people using vibe coding tech to build tools to fight back against the government. For months, lone vibe coder Rafael Concepcion has obsessively built tools to counter the federal immigration crackdown—pivoting as he's been outmatched.

— Taylor Lorenz (@taylorlorenz.bsky.social) 2026-04-05T18:13:58.344Z

• In Missouri, a judge could decline to finalize a divorce if the woman was pregnant. House Bill 1908, which just passed both houses of the state's legislature, aims to change this.

• Was "millennial feminism" responsible for "hookup culture"? No, suggests Cartoons Hate Her. (There's a bunch I disagree with in this post, but I think the general idea that "hookup culture" was not some sort of feminist plot is probably correct…)

• Do tech companies own digital data, or do their users? This is one of the questions at the heart of an upcoming Supreme Court case—Chatrie v. United States—in which justices will consider the constitutionality of "geofence warrants."

• Sigh: People are now applying the "addiction" framework to AI agents.

No they are not. Can we stop with sloppy moral panic claims just once?

— Chris Ferguson ????✝️???????????????????????? (@CJFerguson1111) April 5, 2026

• "The owner of two Scottsdale gentlemen's clubs has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Scottsdale and its police department, accusing investigators of conducting an improper and damaging probe into allegations that customers were drugged," according to 12 News Phoenix.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: 'I Am Blowing Up Everything'

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

SexInternetFree SpeechFirst AmendmentPornographyWeb & BlogsPrivacySex WorkChildrenTeenagersWisconsinLaw & Government
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (16)

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.

  1. Social Justice is neither   3 hours ago

    May as well put "Pedophiles are being harmed with age verification" as your header given the state of sex education and the average Leftist's push for degeneracy and sexual grooming of children, ENB absolutely included in that.

    Log in to Reply
  2. mad.casual   3 hours ago

    (or, some might speculate, intended albeit unspoken consequences)

    GTFO pedophile.

    This is chemjeff-level "Whatfor muh Snow Whyte?" retardation. Nobody's stopping anyone from studying mammalian and/or other animal sexual reproduction. Even the Galleria dell'Accademia admits minors for free, but requires children under 12 to be accompanied by an adult. You aren't pushing for sex education and your "intended albeit unspoken" dishonesty was out the window when "Conservative Bathroom Panic" turned into cutting off children's genitals and forcing girls to share locker rooms with boys.

    You are your own FUD/fearmonger.

    Log in to Reply
  3. Mickey Rat   3 hours ago

    Age verification laws implemented: Foucault's successors most affected.

    Log in to Reply
  4. mad.casual   2 hours ago

    Sex Educators

    Speaking of "intended albeit unspoken", this is "reproductive healthcare" as euphemism for abortion isn't it? My sex ed classes were taught by the health, biology, and/or phys. ed. teachers. They required parental consent first. Same for my own kids. The materials were specifically health related and, because many of us had access to or had seen pornography (even in the pre-internet days) we would've laughed in your face if you'd said "Age verification of pornography could be a problem". Not for the ability for someone to consider them pornographic, but to the degree to which they had already been scrubbed free of pornography or even artistry. This is like worrying Georgia O'Keeffe paintings or violin plots might get banned.

    For millions of years humans and even lower mammals have managed to figure out sex without "Sex Educators". If they are an actual self-standing occupation at public schools, they should be shit-canned entirely without regard for age-verification laws. If age verification laws are a problem for them, they should be fired, rehired, and then fired again.

    Log in to Reply
  5. Agammamon   2 hours ago

    >could be used against sex educators, sexual health organizations, reproductive freedom groups, sex worker rights advocates, transgender rights advocates, and queer creators of all sorts.

    Mostly against the ones that aren't providing age appropriate sex ed - which should be approved by parents - and those that are producing pornography aimed at children.

    ENB, pedophiles consider themselves 'chikd sex educators'.

    Log in to Reply
  6. MollyGodiva   2 hours ago

    It is well established that people who had comprehensive sex ed make better choices that lead to lower STDs and lower unplanned pregnancies. To deny comprehensive sex ed is to put one's own puritan notions above the health and safety of others.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Zeb   12 minutes ago

      So are the only two options comprehensive sex ed and [something that isn't comprehensive sex ed]? This observation is meaningless without a comparison to what the alternatives were. I'd like to think that it's possible to effectively educate kids on how to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs without offending most parent's sensibilities. Shouldn't require anything remotely pornographic. And I'm not talking "abstinence only" either. Don't think that's a realistic option at this point.

      Log in to Reply
  7. Agammamon   1 hour ago

    >Opponents of these laws counter that actually this is about adult free speech

    You write this but . . . most of your objections (at least in Reason) seem to center around 'sex education' of minors and minor's access to 'educational material'.

    How much sex education do adults need? 'Reproductive Freedom' groups - that is just a euphemism for 'organizations pushing for unrestricted abortion' with a small side of birth control access. Sex worker rights activists aren't going to be targeted by anti-pornography laws unless they're producing pornography. So not activists but cam-girls who are losing money because 16 year olds can't subscribe anymore.

    What is it about 'transgender rights' that is inherently sexual? YOU ALL TOLD US DRAG SHOWS AREN'T SEXUAL! and are appropriate for children. 'Ladypenis' in the locker room is fine, right?

    Finally 'queer creators of all sorts'? A queer creator can not create anything that isn't inherently sexual? A queer directs a remake of '2001' and, *of course* they're gonna have to put butt-sex in there? Because they're queer? If you are on the LGBT+ then your only defining characteristic is sex and sexuality?

    Log in to Reply
    1. mad.casual   51 minutes ago

      The thing is never the thing. The thing behind the thing is never the thing. They're just distractions or cover for the thing. The real thing is always the revolution.

      This is free speech absolutism as cover for activism (as cover for forced social policy). Pornography may be protected speech. Obviously, rape scenes and scenes between related adults can/do evoke some valid libertarian concerns about consent even strictly among consenting adults. Especially given the commonality of "buyer's remorse" and Christine Blasey-Ford-style "repressed memories". Showing pornography to children isn't speech. There's a case to be had that kids sneaking in the back door to a theater doesn't mean anyone is criminally responsible, but the idea that PH requiring age verification means teachers (duly licensed with Union Membership Cards, Continuing Education credits, annual Youth Protection Training, and parental consent forms in hand) won't be able to access educational materials is retardedly orthogonal. Showing pornography to children in school as some sort of ideological, implemented policy definitely isn't free speech.

      Log in to Reply
    2. Zeb   8 minutes ago

      A queer creator can not create anything that isn't inherently sexual?

      Evidence suggests that the answer is no (or yes, depending on how you parse double negatives). "Queer" is largely trolling to freak out the squares.

      Log in to Reply
      1. Rick James   12 seconds ago

        What's fascinating about our current era is that saying you know what a woman is quite literally freaks out the squares. As many a cultural observer has noted, the trans thing IS the foundational belief of the establishment. Nothing freaks out the squares more than to express skepticism of an intact male in the changing room with your daughter, or question why the governor in the state with the highest retail theft in the nation vetoed $500,000 for new programs to curb "organized retail theft" but didn't veto $1,000,000 per annum laser hair removal program for transgender prison inmates.

        Log in to Reply
  8. JonFrum   56 minutes ago

    Someone can't read.

    " Was "millennial feminism" responsible for "hookup culture"? No, suggests Cartoons Hate Her. (There's a bunch I disagree with in this post, but I think the general idea that "hookup culture" was not some sort of feminist plot is probably correct…)"

    Cant tell the difference between 'responsible for' and 'some sort of feminist plot. Feminism "smash gender barriers" led directly to transgender acceptance. It's not what they were thinking in 1975, but it came about as a direct result of their ideology. The road to hell, and all.

    Log in to Reply
    1. mad.casual   22 minutes ago

      As above, there is also, again, "the thing is never the thing".

      Hookup culture was never a thing. Whether created by feminists or anti-hedonists, or both, it was a myth; a myth that served the feminist narratives about women "taking control of their own sexuality", freezing their eggs while girlbossing it up, and secretly voting for Kamala Harris behind their evil, MAGA husbands' backs.

      There's been the analogy of accusing the people with defensive stab wounds of being equally guilty as the person holding the knife, but at this point, we're talking about feminists who have been caught, bloody-knife-in-hand, serially, that are openly lamenting about what those other people potentially *could* do at some point down the road with the knife in their pocket.

      "1 in 4 women" was *actually* used to impose beyond-prudish standards for sexual activity among adults. Abortion defense *actually* led to defending outright murders by physicians and 10 yr. olds getting "secret"/"private"/"her body, her choice" abortions to conceal the identity of their rapists. Sexual post-modernism has *actually* given us a female SCOTUS jurist who can't answer the question, "What is a woman?" But it's the possibility that, somehow, "sex educators" won't be able to get medical diagrams of penises and uteruses for their students that's the real threat.

      Log in to Reply
  9. Rick James   9 minutes ago

    Ryan's thread delves into the new findings as well as sharing some criticism of them.

    "new findings" lol.

    Oh, days since last Taylor Lorenz reference: 0

    Log in to Reply
    1. Rick James   9 minutes ago

      Chances that Taylor Lorenz even knows what 'vibe coding' is: ~0%

      Log in to Reply
  10. Rick James   8 minutes ago

    "There's a principle in ecology known as the island effect," Silver comments, where "in an isolated environment, strange things tend to happen":

    There are all sorts of weird mutations that might not be survivable in a more competitive environment that can actually become fitness advantages on an island. Big animals tend to get smaller, and small animals tend to get bigger—like the Komodo dragon, whose range is limited to a few isolated islands in Indonesia.

    That's basically what Twitter looks like now, "only with Catturd and the Gavin Newsom Press Office accounts locked in combat instead of a couple of (cute?) lizards."

    Did Nate Silver just produce a bunch of words and syllables without actually saying anything?

    Log in to Reply

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump's College Sports Executive Order Adds Chaos to an Already Wild Legal War

Jason Russell | 4.6.2026 12:15 PM

Sex Educators Say They're Being Harmed by Age Verification Laws

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 4.6.2026 11:45 AM

'I Am Blowing Up Everything'

Eric Boehm | 4.6.2026 9:30 AM

As the Death Toll Rises in Trump's Immigration Crackdown, Support for ICE Shrinks

Fiona Harrigan | From the May 2026 issue

Brickbat: Must Report

Charles Oliver | 4.6.2026 4:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks