Rep. Finke Was Right: Age-Gating Isn't About Kids, It's About Control
a day ago
- #LGBTQ-rights
- #censorship
- #age-verification
- Rep. Leigh Finke testified against Minnesota's HF1434, an age-verification bill, arguing it doesn't protect children but instead restricts First Amendment rights.
- The bill mandates ID or biometric verification for websites hosting lawful content, including LGBTQ+ topics, under a broad definition of 'harmful to minors.'
- Age-verification laws are being used to block LGBTQ+ youth from accessing educational or affirming content, as seen in the Supreme Court case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
- Rep. Finke faced backlash for advocating against these laws, with critics misrepresenting her stance as anti-child safety.
- Age-verification laws are part of a broader effort to control online speech, backed by anti-LGBTQ+ groups aiming to censor content about sexuality and gender.
- The FSC v. Paxton case allowed Texas to enforce age verification for sites with sexual content, setting a precedent that burdens adults' privacy and data security.
- Minnesota's HF1434 goes further, targeting any speech about sex, gender, or reproductive health, infringing on minors' First Amendment rights.
- Organizations supporting age-verification laws, like Exodus Cry and Alliance Defending Freedom, have histories of opposing LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive freedoms.
- These laws are part of a larger censorship campaign, including book bans and attacks on DEI policies, to control access to information.
- Rep. Finke's stance highlights how 'protecting children' is being used as a pretext for government control over online speech, particularly targeting marginalized communities.