Efforts to regulate internet access to adult websites, particularly for minors, are gaining momentum as lawmakers in South Dakota take cues from Texas’ controversial age verification law.

However, critics warn that such measures may overreach, infringe on constitutional rights, and fail to address the complexities of regulating an ever-expanding digital landscape.

Over the summer, the legislative Study Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Regulation of Internet Access by Minors explored strategies to limit minors’ access to pornography. Their conclusion: emulate the Texas law, which requires users to upload government-issued identification to access adult sites. The law, signed last year by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, imposes fines of up to $10,000 per violation, escalating to $250,000 if minors are involved.

The Texas model’s appeal lies in its stringent approach. Yet, the law faces fierce legal battles, with critics arguing it infringes on privacy and free speech. The Free Speech Coalition, representing adult content providers, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have challenged the law, citing significant privacy risks for adults and undue burdens on accessing constitutionally protected content.

While a federal district court initially blocked the Texas law, a federal appeals court reversed that decision in a 2-1 vote. The case is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. During this legal limbo, the law remains in effect, prompting significant consequences within Texas. Pornhub, a leading adult website, blocked access for users with Texas IP addresses, spurring interest in VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) as Texans seek ways to bypass restrictions.

Critics argue that the law, while well-intentioned, imposes invasive measures. In an interview with Forbes, an ACLU attorney called it a “government overreach,” claiming it forces adults to sacrifice online privacy under the guise of protecting children.

The scale of enforcement also raises questions. With an estimated 4 million adult websites globally, monitoring compliance presents a logistical nightmare. “Is someone in state government going to be tasked with visiting each site to see if it’s complying with the state’s age-verification law?” asked one commentator, highlighting the impracticality of such an undertaking.

Beyond the legal and logistical hurdles, critics contend that these measures shift the responsibility of protecting minors from parents to the state. Advocates suggest that instead of attempting to police the internet, lawmakers should focus on empowering parents with resources like online safety education, web filtering tools, and blocking software subsidies.

The suggestion to prioritize parental involvement over government regulation stems from the belief that parents are better positioned to guide their children’s digital behavior.

“Lawmakers’ intentions are good, but they’ll never be able to police the internet or take on the responsibilities that are best handled by parents,” one expert noted.

As South Dakota considers adopting Texas’ approach, the Supreme Court’s impending decision on the law’s constitutionality will have far-reaching implications. The outcome could shape future legislative efforts across the country, setting a precedent for how states regulate online content while balancing privacy, free speech, and child protection.

In the meantime, questions remain about whether age verification laws can effectively address the challenges they aim to solve—or if they simply create new issues. For lawmakers, navigating this digital minefield requires balancing technology’s potential with constitutional principles and practical enforcement limits.