By Steph Quinn
Commercial websites and platforms must already verify that users are at least 18 if more than a third of their content is sexually explicit as part of a rule enforced by Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway since December.
The bill, sponsored by Republican state Rep. Sherri Gallick of Belton, would codify that rule in state law, requiring websites to use third party age verification providers.
“One of the things that was really compelling to me is that a lot of people growing up in today’s age look at a phone or they look at a computer, and they think that is reality,” Gallick told The Independent. “It’s very demeaning to women and to children.”
Sites that don’t comply would be subject to civil penalties, including fines up to $10,000 per day in violation of the law and an additional $250,000 if at least one minor accessed sexually explicit content. Sites could be charged $10,000 per violation of a provision prohibiting age verification providers from retaining users’ identifiable information.
The House passed the bill 112-25 Wednesday, with 20 Democrats and 5 Republicans in opposition and 11 Democrats voting “present.” The Senate passed the bill 32-0 on Tuesday, sending it back to the House for approval of a minor amendment.
The bill got initial House approval last year but was dropped from the calendar before getting a formal vote due to a challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court to a similar Texas law.
“The fear was, ‘Okay, what if they don’t uphold that? Then we would have to make some changes,’” Gallick said.
The court sided with Texas in July 2025, ruling that the state’s requirement that users prove their age by showing government-issued identification did not violate adults’ right to access constitutionally protected content.
During House debate in March, Democratic lawmakers questioned the potential effectiveness of the bill and raised the possibility of unintended consequences.
Democratic state Rep. Eric Woods of Kansas City said young people are likely to find ways around age verification requirements.
“Kids are smart,” Woods said. “There are VPNs. There are browser settings that allow you to skirt around some of this stuff.”
House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, a Kansas City Democrat, argued that age verification requirements could lead more prominent porn websites to block access in Missouri, driving traffic to less scrupulous sites with fewer content safeguards.
“The websites that are less inclined to follow the rules also tend to be the types of websites that are filled with child sexual assault material, that include nonconsensual sex acts,” Aune said.
The porn industry’s largest website, Pornhub, blocked access in Missouri after Hanaway announced her office’s rule, issuing a statement calling the new rule ineffective and raising data privacy concerns.
Gallick said that while she realizes some young people will still access sexually explicit material, putting age verification requirements in state law is an important step to protect children. She said pornography can be used by bad actors to “groom” children to engage in sexual activity.
“When there’s a leak in your house you turn the water off,” Gallick said. “When there’s pests that come into your house, an exterminator comes in and cuts off the source. This is the source. Children do not need to view pornography.”
11 comments:
Security theater all in the name of eroding our privacy. Who will be accountable when this data is leaked out? Multiple services requiring ID verification have already been breached.
5:47AM, Simple solution genius, you don't have to be worried about data breaches if you keep your perve behavior off these sites. If you knew anything you are already being tracked by your internet provider, search engine providers, social media providers, cell phone providers, cloud storage providers, government agencies - both state and federal including the police, the FBI, NSA, accountability software, and multiple child protection organizations - so by all means - jump on to these sites - they know who you are, better yet do this at work - and they will call the authorities on you!
8:11AM, clearly you're not sur what you're talking about. You're only partially correct. Also, nobody is 'calling authorities' lol. Please get a better understanding of these technical concepts, as well as what is actually happening with your data.
If you knew anything, you'd know that you can protect yourself online, not all of us are being tracked to the degree you believe.
It's a little sad that that you seem to think this will stop at 'perve' sites, this is only the beginning. More and more services are requiring ID upload to participate. These companies are not properly equipped to protect this data, nor are the third party vendors that they are outsourcing this practice to.
Your condemnation of these 'perves' sounds an awful lot like deflection from your own perverted tendencies.
It's not mine or your place to judge someone on their 'perve behavior", btw, you don't know how to spell 'perv'.
Hey Randy, didn't you previously state you wanted proper civil discussion, instead of whatever 8:11 is trying to accomplish?
Seems you could do more to not approve unwarranted insults and falsehoods.
There is no such thing as privacy when your online, just as 8:11 stated, everybody is watching.
If you believe this with absolute certainty, you simply haven't tried hard enough.
Leave me and my porn alone!
921, "I personally don't like something someone wrote online, please do better!"
I'll agree that 811 is not the brightest, he's exactly the type of person that is ok with our complete erosion of privacy because "if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about!"... but just because he hurt your feelings in some pathetic way doesnt mean his comments need to be eradicated lol
Nobody knows who you are or cares.
This isn't Facebook. There is no excuse for people to treat each other like this. Things like that guy's attitude and you're indifference is why people act the way they do.
Again, not a single one of these 'people' would address another like this IRL.
I don't pretend, I speak like I am. Can't say the same for the rest of the keyboard tough guys here.
He didn't "hurt my feelings", he's an ignorant asshole, and he should be better. If not he should be gone. Unless Randy wants to backtrack and make a new post welcoming the bigots and inbreds. Because he has previously held the same stance; show respect or leave. But, I bet Randy gets lots of adclicks from these knuckledraggers.
603 "It didn't hurt my feelings, I just hate the fact that this person said something I don't like SO much that I want his comments removed! This person is mean, crude, something nobody IRL would ever be! People aren't blunt with others or call each other names IRL! We can't have name calling here! Now Randy, remove this inbred bigot knuckledragger!"
I'd like for you to stew on this for a minute before attempting to respond again, lol
Excuse me for expecting civility from people. I'll remember in the future that if I want my opinions to be respected, I must first demean and insult others.
Again, not a single coward here would utter these words in a real life conversation, but you all become so tough and aggressive behind a screen. It's okay, I too was once 13.
Post a Comment