Hello, fellow law nerds. Welcome to another episode of Boom Lawyered, a Rewire News Group podcast

hosted by the legal journalism team that is just surviving. And that's all we can ask sometimes.

I'm ReWire News Group's editor at large, Imani Gandhi. And I'm Jess Peklo, ReWire News Group's executive editor.

ReWire News Group is the one and only home for expert repro journalism that inspires you to

survive the Trump Times together with us.

And the boom lawyer podcast is part of that mission.

So a big thanks to our subscribers and a welcome to our new listeners.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case yesterday that may upend the First Amendment and decide the future of access to so-called prurient materials online.

For those listeners who are smart enough to avoid law school, Amani, what the hell does purient mean?

Porny, basically.

Wait, porny? Okay, so how do you tell what's porny or purient?

Well, like just Potter Stewart famously said, you know it when you see it. The case is called

Free Speech Coalition versus Paxton, and it's about a Texas law passed in 2023, HB1181, that requires

many websites that distribute pornographic content to verify that users of the website are at least 18 years old.

And in this case, pornographic content is not just pornographic content. It also includes

anything that Texas feels is inappropriate for minors. Specifically, any website that has more

than one-third content that is quote-unquote inappropriate for minors.

The case is being referred to in the media as the porn ban, which considering the internet is

basically 95% porn and VPNs exist, makes little sense to me, but I digress.

Actually, though, you don't digress because one of the arguments

against Texas's law is that it's not narrowly tailored to accomplish the goal of the law.

If Texas is trying to keep porn away from kids, why are they allowing the platform where kids

...