In a landscape increasingly shaped by conservative political currents, a new wave of legislation targeting adult content is sweeping across the United States. Beyond the controversial age-verification mandates that have already begun to reshape the online adult entertainment industry, several states are now exploring or implementing what are commonly referred to as ‘porn taxes.’ These levies, often framed as a means to fund youth mental health initiatives or address perceived societal harms, are sparking intense debate about free speech, constitutional rights, and the very definition of acceptable online content.
Utah’s New Levy: A 7% Tax on Adult Content
At the forefront of this movement is Utah, where state senator Calvin Musselman, a Republican, recently introduced a bill that could impose a 7 percent tax on adult content providers operating within the state. This proposed tax would apply to a broad spectrum of revenue streams, including sales, distributions, memberships, subscriptions, performances, and any content deemed "harmful to minors." If enacted, the bill would also mandate an annual $500 fee for these sites to be paid to the State Tax Commission. The revenue generated is earmarked for Utah’s Department of Health and Human Services to bolster mental health support for teenagers.
This move by Utah follows closely on the heels of Alabama, which became the first state to enact a 10 percent "porn tax" last year. This measure was implemented in the wake of the state’s adoption of age-verification laws, requiring users to prove their age before accessing explicit material. Pennsylvania lawmakers are also reportedly considering similar legislation, with proposals for an additional 10 percent tax on consumers for subscriptions and purchases from online adult content platforms, on top of existing sales and use taxes for digital products.
A Broader Conservative Push
These legislative efforts are part of a wider conservative agenda that seeks to place further restrictions on adult content. While the impulse to regulate or restrict sex work and adult entertainment is not new, these current initiatives unfold against a backdrop of heightened online surveillance and a growing appetite for censorship. The push for age verification alone has seen significant traction, with approximately 25 US states now having some form of such law in place.
Historically, attempts to impose content-specific taxes on adult material have often faltered due to legal challenges. The core of these challenges rests on fundamental First Amendment protections. As legal experts point out, singling out a particular form of speech for disfavored treatment, simply because a legislature disapproves of it, runs directly counter to the principles enshrined in the Constitution.
The Constitutional Crossroads: Free Speech vs. Moral Outrage
Evelyn Douek, an associate professor of law at Stanford Law School, is unequivocal in her assessment. "This kind of porn tax is blatantly unconstitutional," she states. "It singles out a particular type of protected speech for disfavored treatment, purely because the legislature doesn’t like it—that’s exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect against." Douek emphasizes that while states may have concerns about adult content, the Supreme Court has affirmed adults’ right to access it. "Utah may not like porn, but as the Supreme Court affirmed only last year, adults have a fully protected right to access it."
Many states, including Utah, Alabama, and Pennsylvania, have gone further by adopting resolutions declaring pornography a "public health crisis." This framing is a common thread among lawmakers advocating for stricter regulations. Utah, for instance, was an early mover in this space, establishing an "obscenity and pornography complaints ombudsman" in 2001, though the position was later terminated.
Age Verification: A ‘Back Door’ to Censorship?
While proponents of these laws often cite the need to protect minors, critics argue that age verification measures are not solely about child safety. Leaked documents and public statements suggest that some proponents view these laws as a strategic pathway towards a broader federal ban on pornography. Russell Vought, a Trump ally and co-author of Project 2025, has reportedly described age verification laws as a "back door" tactic to achieve this goal.
This perspective aligns with concerns raised by industry stakeholders. Alex Kekesi, vice president of brand and community at Pornhub, has previously noted the complex nature of age restriction, highlighting data privacy issues and the potential for inconsistent application across platforms. Pornhub, for its part, has already blocked access for users in 23 states to comply with age-verification mandates and has urged major tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple to implement device-based verification across their operating systems.
The Impact on Creators and the Broader Internet
The rise of platforms like OnlyFans and Pornhub has indeed brought sex work into the mainstream, but it has also made it easier for authorities to monitor and potentially penalize adult entertainers and consumers. As these new taxes and regulations take hold, creators are likely to bear a significant portion of the burden. Mike Stabile, director of public policy at the Free Speech Coalition, argues that these measures are driven by a "skewed ideology of cultural conservatism" that seeks to "punish sexual expression."
Stabile further elaborates on the financial implications: "When we talk about free speech, we generally mean the freedom to speak, the ability to speak freely without government interference. But in this case, free also means not having to pay for the right to do so. A government tax on speech limits that right to those who can afford it." This creates a scenario where the ability to express oneself, even constitutionally protected speech, becomes contingent on economic capacity.
A Slippery Slope for Digital Speech?
The legal arguments against these "porn taxes" extend beyond specific industry protections. Douek points out that while the Supreme Court has allowed states to regulate minors’ access to explicit material, a tax on such content does little to achieve that objective. Instead, it makes the content more expensive for adults, effectively penalizing the provision and consumption of protected speech.
Concerns about access to adult content among minors remain a significant part of the public discourse. Reports indicate that a substantial percentage of teenagers have encountered adult content online, often accidentally, with social media platforms being a primary vector. While states like Alabama and Utah are using tax revenue for behavioral health services, framing the issue around underage harm, the effectiveness and constitutionality of these methods are being questioned.
Challenging Precedents for Future Speech
The debate over "porn taxes" and age verification is not merely about adult entertainment; it touches upon broader questions of digital free speech and government overreach. Stabile draws parallels to hypothetical scenarios: "What if a state decided that Covid misinformation was straining state health resources and taxed newsletters who promoted it? What if the federal government decided to require a costly license to start a podcast?" He argues that adult content should not be treated as a unique category of speech separate from other forms of media and entertainment.
"Porn isn’t some magical category of speech separate from movies, streaming services, or other forms of entertainment," Stabile asserts. "Adult businesses already pay taxes on the income they earn, just as every other business does. Taxing them because of imagined harms is not only dangerous to our industry, it sets a dangerous precedent for government power.”
As more states consider or implement these policies, the legal and ethical ramifications will continue to unfold. The core question remains: can governments impose punitive taxes on constitutionally protected speech based on moral or social objections, or will the courts uphold the First Amendment’s robust protection for a wide range of expression, even in the digital age?