Pornhub blocks access to Virginia users in response to new age verification law

By GAVIN STONE | gavin.stone@virginiamedia.com | Staff writer
PUBLISHED: June 29, 2023 at 7:20 p.m. | UPDATED: June 30, 2023 at 3:57 p.m.


Virginians likely will be disappointed the next time they try to access Pornhub.

The popular pornography site has blocked users with Virginia-based IP addresses in response to the state legislature passing a law that requires users to submit government identification to verify their age before accessing adult content. The new law, passed in May, goes into effect Saturday.

Users will be met with a message opposing the legislation, accompanied by a video featuring porn actress Cherie Deville reading it.

“As you may know, your elected officials in Virginia are requiring us to verify your age before allowing you access to our website,” the statement reads. “While safety and compliance are at the forefront of our mission, giving your ID card every time you want to visit an adult platform is not the most effective solution for protecting our users, and in fact, will put children and your privacy at risk.”

The statement goes on to argue that the law doesn’t properly enforce the age verification requirement, meaning some platforms can choose whether to comply. Pornhub said the best solution to protect children is “to identify users by their device and allow access to age-restricted materials and websites based on that identification.”

“As we’ve seen in other states, [requiring ID] just drives traffic to sites with far fewer safety measures in place. Very few sites are able to compare to the robust Trust and Safety measures we currently have in place,” the statement continues. “To protect children and user privacy, any legislation must be enforced against all platforms offering adult content.”

When asked ahead of signing the bill in May whether he was concerned about Pornhub making such a move, Gov. Glenn Youngkin told The Pilot that he would take the bill’s ramifications into account when making his decision.

“I believe that children should be protected from pornography and I want to make sure that we do that,” Youngkin said at the time.

The bill states commercial entities that knowingly publish material “harmful to minors” on the Internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material must verify that users are 18 or older. Users would need to submit copies of government-issued identification or another reasonable method of age and identity verification.

Material deemed harmful to minors in the bill is any that includes descriptions or representations of nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement, or that appeals to the “prurient, shameful, or morbid” interest of minors and lacks serious literary, scientific or artistic value.

Those in violation would not face criminal penalties but would be subject to civil liabilities.

Virginia is the second state to get the cold shoulder from Pornhub. Utah passed a similar law in March, and the site blocked access to users in the state in the days before the law took effect in May.

Free speech advocates have come out against the legislation, arguing that personal data related to pornography usage could be vulnerable to hacks as a result.

Link

Sounds to me like the site is blocking Virginia, not the other way around, as the title implies.

I don't see the problem.

And Utah was blocked first a month or so back for the same reason. I hope more states pass similar laws.

"I certify that I am at least 18 years of age" pop up windows don't do anything to prevent kids from accessing stuff they have no business seeing. It's always been the case that not enough has been done to keep minors from accessing the most graphic of content on the internet. It's time.

I agree with BH and P220 Smudge. The only thing I'm reluctant about is that placing an age restriction of 18+ on pornography seems to say that it's fine if you are 18 or over. It's wrong at any age.

It reminds me of certain "pro-life" groups that celebrated the ban on late-term abortion or in cases of sex selection or birth defects. It makes it sound like sometimes it's morally acceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
"I certify that I am at least 18 years of age" pop up windows don't do anything to prevent kids from accessing stuff they have no business seeing. It's always been the case that not enough has been done to keep minors from accessing the most graphic of content on the internet. It's time.

When the law passed in Utah I tried to access Pornhub to see how effective this block was. In addition to clicking on the “yes I’m 18” tab you also have to submit an official ID that verifies your age.

I wonder how long this is going to last with pornhub. There’s nothing on that site that can’t be found on a hundred other sites that don’t care about Utah or Virginia passing some law and are still accessible.

And I’m curious to see how Utah plans to enforce this age requirement law. Most porn peddlers are offshore and couldn’t care less that Utah passed a law.

How many 13-17 year olds can’t figure out how to use a VPN?

This is stupid for being completely ineffective if for no other reason.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
How many 13-17 year olds can’t figure out how to use a VPN?

This is stupid for being completely ineffective if for no other reason.

-Rob

I think my favorite part is the whole “must submit state issued ID to access it.”

I’ll take “Shit That Ain’t Happening” for $500, Alex.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:
I agree with BH and P220 Smudge. The only thing I'm reluctant about is that placing an age restriction of 18+ on pornography seems to say that it's fine if you are 18 or over. It's wrong at any age.

What, consenting adults can do what they want, watch what they want. This is America, not some middle eastern country.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:
I agree with BH and P220 Smudge. The only thing I'm reluctant about is that placing an age restriction of 18+ on pornography seems to say that it's fine if you are 18 or over. It's wrong at any age.

It reminds me of certain "pro-life" groups that celebrated the ban on late-term abortion or in cases of sex selection or birth defects. It makes it sound like sometimes it's morally acceptable.

Well, that's wandering into waters of the government legislating morality which I think we need to resist at every turn, and I will. If you're 18, you're old enough to have the federal government say "hey you, you're off to go get your limbs blown off in a shithole third world shithole that doesn't have the sense to extract their own natural resources" then I don't think they should ever get to tell you that you don't have the right to watch some midget clown porn before you go, or especially when you get back.

If we're going to agree as a society that past a certain age, you have all the rights of an adult, then that needs to be a universal to the benefit of the newly of-age citizen and not necessarily the government, and I apply that to porn, guns, liquor, drugs, travel, finances, and everything else you can put on the platter. But until that age, it shouldn't be federally and municipally more difficult to procure a firearm than it is to watch unlimited hours of 4k definition porn of every stripe you can imagine and a thousand ways you've never heard of. With that, yes, I think the 21 vs 18 thing is stupid and also needs to go away. Make it 19 or 20 for everything if you think 18 is too young, and enforce it.

Hypocrites. Many Virginia legislators are perfectly fine with naked men parading in front of young children, but they want age vefification for porn sites. It's getting to be that almost the entire world is full of shit.

Louisiana recently passed this age restricted sites needing age proof to enter and already some groups are attempting to file lawsuits against enforcing on grounds of 1st Ammemendant rights of free speech and who knows what else they might come up with...... drill sgt.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
I apply that to porn, guns, liquor, drugs, travel, finances, and everything else you can put on the platter.

I don't think we should put the constitutionally protected right to bear arms in the same list as porn and drugs.

I also have no problem with a government (not the federal government) legislating something like a law against public intoxication based on morality. It's not about whether or not governments legislate morality, it's whether or not the morality they legislate is right or wrong.

Take the transgender issue for instance. Both sides claim the moral high ground that their position on providing or denying surgeries to minors is correct.

Access to porn is one of those inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: the pursuit of happiness

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:
I don't think we should put the constitutionally protected right to bear arms in the same list as porn and drugs.

I would. We're talking the basest of human needs and urges, and the constitution is meant to protect the freedom to pursue them without interference from the government. Men have been making images of naked women since we were living in caves and painting with soot. That isn't going away. Intoxicants of various types have been around nearly as long as there's an archaeological record for it. That also isn't going away. Those guys eating and smoking plants that made them feel funny, who painted or carved naked ladies were also carrying around knives, spears, and clubs. They've been on the same list of "wherever there are human beings, you will find these things" for many thousands of years.

Other moralities have evolved in the interim, but it's fairly universally accepted by the majority that kids don't need to be seeing imagery of the evolved forms of sexual activity, and now we need to actually do something about it.

So I can get the idea that you don’t want little kids accessing porn. And these days that’s pretty easy to do. Couple of problems with this implementation, though.

Pornography, believe it or not, is Constitutionally protected free speech. Obscenity is not. What’s the difference? Good question. Like Potter Stewart said: “I know it when I see it”.

The other issue is privacy. Pretty much any court is going to say you have the right to watch all the scrogging you want as a private matter. Should you have to cough up your personal information to do so? I think not.

Or maybe you should? You have to fill out a 4473 to buy a gun. Is this the same? Should it be treated the same?

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

Men have been making images of naked women since we were living in caves and painting with soot. That isn't going away.

People have engaged in prostitution, adultery, drunkenness, you name it for thousands of years. That doesn't mean that it's right. I never said that passing a law is going to prevent these things from happening, but I think we should still have laws.

I realize that the libertarian position is popular when it comes to prostitution and pornography but the proliferation of these things is a sign of cultural decline. It's not just a question of morality. These things have a negative impact on our society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scul66cSzh0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAlXdyjmWUo

So is this another state Pornhub blocked or is this jibjab of a prior post about Pornhub blocking a state due to their rules? I remember reading this on here before.

When I grew up, if you wanted “porn” you had to find a Playboy magazine somewhere. That sure wasn’t porn in today’s terms. Seeing Playboy back in my day wasn’t bad in my opinion, but today’s porn is bad in my opinion.