Rep. Finke Was Right: Age-Gating Isn't About Kids, It's About Control

Rep. Finke Was Right: Age-Gating Isn’t About Kids, It’s About Control | Electronic Frontier Foundation Skip to main content About Contact Press People Opportunities EFF's 35th Anniversary Issues Free Speech Privacy Creativity and Innovation Transparency International Security Our Work Deeplinks Blog Press Releases Events Legal Cases Whitepapers Podcast Annual Reports Take Action Action Center Electronic Frontier Alliance Volunteer Tools Privacy Badger Surveillance Self-Defense Certbot Atlas of Surveillance Cover Your Tracks Street Level Surveillance apkeep Donate Donate to EFF Giving Societies Shop Sponsorships Other Ways to Give Membership FAQ Donate Donate to EFF Shop Other Ways to Give Email updates on news, actions, and events in your area. Join EFF Lists Copyright (CC BY) Trademark Privacy Policy Thanks Electronic Frontier Foundation Donate Privacy’s Defender: My Thirty-Year Fight Against Digital Surveillance Rep. Finke Was Right: Age-Gating Isn’t About Kids, It’s About Control DEEPLINKS BLOG By Rindala Alajaji and Molly Buckley March 12, 2026 Rep. Finke Was Right: Age-Gating Isn’t About Kids, It’s About Control Share It Share on Mastodon Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link When Rep. Leigh Finke spoke last month before the Minnesota House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee to testify against HF1434 , a broad-sweeping proposal to age-gate the internet, she began with something disarming: agreement. “I want to support the basic part of this,” she said, the shared goal of protecting young people online. Because that is not controversial: everyone wants kids to be safe. But HF1434, Minnesota’s proposed age-verification bill, simply won’t “protect children.” It mandates that websites hosting speech that is protected by the First Amendment for both adults and young people to verify users’ identities, often through government IDs or biometric data. As we’ve discussed before, the bill’s definition of speech that lawmakers deem “harmful to minors” is notoriously broad —broad enough to sweep in lawful, non-pornographic speech about sexual orientation, sexual health, and gender identity. Rep. Finke, an openly transgender lawmaker, next raised a point that her critics have since tried to distort: age-verification laws like the Minnesota bill are already being used to block young LGBTQ+ people from exercising their First Amendment rights to access information that may be educational, affirming, or life-saving. Referencing the Supreme Court case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton , she noted that state attorneys general have been “almost jubilant” about the ability to use these laws to restrict queer youth from accessing content. “We know that ‘prurient interest’ could be for many people, the very existence of transgender kids,” she added, referring to the malleable legal standard that would govern what content must be age-gated under the law. But despite years’ worth of evidence to back her up, Finke has faced a wave of attacks from countless media outlets and religious advocacy groups for her statements. Rep. Finke’s testimony was repeatedly mischaracterized as not having young people’s best interests in mind, when really she was accurately describing the lived reality of LGBTQ+ youth and advocating in support of their access to vital resources and community. In fact, this backlash proves her point. Beyond attempting to silence queer voices and to scare other legislators from speaking up against these laws, it reveals how age-verification mandates are part of a larger effort to give the government much greater control of what young people are allowed to say, read, or see online. Rep. Finke was also right that these proposals are bad policy—they prevent all young people from finding community online—and that they violate young people’s First Amendment rights. Why FSC v. Paxton Matters Rep. Finke was similarly right to bring up the Paxton case, because beyond the troubling Supreme Court precedent it produced , Texas’s age-verification law also drew eager support from an extraordinary number of amicus briefs from anti-LGBTQ organizations ( some even designated hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center). In FSC v. Paxton , the Supreme Court gave Texas the green light to require age verification for sites where at least one-third of the content is sexual material deemed “harmful to minors,” which generally means explicit sexual content. This ruling, based on how young people do not have a First Amendment right to access explicit sexual content, allows states to enact onerous age-verification rules that will block adults from accessing lawful speech, curtail their ability to be anonymous, and jeopardize their data security and privacy. These are real and immense burdens on adults, and the Court was wrong to ignore them in upholding Texas’ law. But laws enacted by other states and Minnesota HF 1434 go further than the Texas statute. Rather than restricting minors’ from accessing sexual content, these proposals expand what the state deems “harmful to minors” to include any speech that may reference sex, sexuality, gender, and reproductive health. But young people have a First Amendment right to both speak on those topics and to access information online about them. We will continue to fight against all online age restrictions, but bills like Minnesota’s HF 1434, which seek to restrict minors from accessing speech about their bodies, sexuality, and other truthful information, are especially pernicious. EFF and Rep. Finke are on the same page here: age verification mandates create immense harm to our First Amendment rights , our right to privacy , as well as our online safety and security. These proposals also fully ignore the reality that LGBTQ young people often rely on the internet for information they cannot get elsewhere. But the Paxton case, and the coalition behind it, illustrates exactly how these laws can be weaponized. They weren’t there just to stand up for young people’s privacy online—they were there to argue that the state has a compelling interest in shielding minors from material that, in practice, often includes LGBTQ content. Ultimately, these groups would like to age-gate not just porn sites, but also any content that might discuss sex, sexuality, gender, reproductive health, abortion, and more. Using Children as Props to Enact Censorship The coalition of organizations that filed amicus briefs in support of Texas’s age verification law tells us everything we need to know about the true intentions behind legislating access to information online: censorship, surveillance, and control. After all, if the race to age-gate the internet was purely about child safety, we would expect its strongest supporters to be child-development experts or privacy advocates. Instead, the loudest advocates are organizations dedicated to policing sexuality, attacking LGBTQ+ folks and reproductive rights, and censoring anything that doesn’t fit within their worldview. Below are some of the harmful platforms that the organizations supporting the age-gating movement are advancing, and how their arguments echo in the attacks on Rep. Finke today: Policing sexuality, bodily autonomy, and reproductive rights Many of the organizations backing age-verification laws have spent decades trying to restrict access to accurate sexual health information and reproductive care. Groups like Exodus Cry , for example, who filed a brief in support of the Texas AG in the SCOTUS case, frame pornography as part of a broader moral crisis. Founded by a “ Christian dominionist ” activist, Exodus Cry advocates for the criminalization of porn and sex work, and promotes a worldview that defines “sexual immorality” as any sexual activity outside marriage between one man and one woman. Its leadership describes the internet as a battleground in a “pornified world” that has to be reclaimed. Another brief in support of the age-verification law was filed by a group of organizations including the Public Advocate of the United States (an SPLC-designated hate group ) and America’s Future. America’s Future is an organization that was formed to “revitalize the role of faith in our society” and fiercely advocates in favor of trans sports bans . These groups see age-verification laws as attractive solutions because they create a legal mechanism to wall off large swaths of content that merely mentions sex from not only young people but millions of adults, too. Attacking LGBTQ+ Rights Several of the most prominent legal advocates behind age-verification laws have also led the crusade against LGBTQ+ equality. The internet that these groups envision is one that heavily censors critical and even life-saving LGBTQ+ resources, community, and information. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), for instance (which is another SPLC-designated hate group ), built its reputation on litigation aimed at rolling back LGBTQ+ protections—including allowing businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples, criminalizing same-sex relationships abroad, and restricting transgender rights . The internet that these groups envision is one that heavily censors critical and even life-saving LGBTQ+ resources, community, and information. Then there’s other groups like Them Before Us and Women’s Liberation Front, both of which submitted amici in support of the Texas Attorney General and are devoted to upending LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. Them Before Us says it’s “committed to putting the rights and well-being of children ahead of the desires and agendas of adults.” But it’s also running a campaign to “ End Obergefell ,” the 2015 Supreme Court case that upheld the right to same-sex marriage, and has been on the cutting edge of transphobic campaigning and pseudoscientific fearmongering about IVF and surrogacy. The Women’s Liberation Front, on the other hand, is an organization that has a long track record of supporting transphobic policies such as bathroom bills, bans on gender-affirming healthcare, and efforts to define “sex” strictly as the biological sex assigned at birth. Through cases like FSC v. Paxton , groups like these three continue to advance a vision of society that creates government mandates to enforce their worldviews over personal freedom, while hiding behind a shroud of concern for children’s safety. But when they also describe LGBTQ+ people as “ evil ” threats to children and run countless campaigns against their human rights, they are being clear about their intentions. This is why we continue to say: the impact of age verification measures goes beyond porn sites . Expanding censorship beyond the internet into real-life public spaces As we’ve said for years now, the push to age-gate the internet is part of a broader campaign to control what information people can access in public life both on- and offline. Many of the same organizations advancing these proposals claim to be acting on behalf of young people, but their arguments consistently use children as props to justify giving the government more control over speech and information. Many of the organizations advocating for online age verification have also supported book bans, attacks on DEI policies and education, and efforts to remove LGBTQ+ materials from schools and libraries. Two of the organizations who supported the Texas Attorney General, Citizens Defending Freedom and Manhattan Institute , have led campaigns around the country to “ abolish DEI ” and ban classical books like “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison from school libraries. These efforts are not different from the efforts to restrict access to the internet—they reflect a broader strategy to restrict access to ideas or information that these groups find objectionable. And they discourage free thought, inquiry, and the ability for people to decide how to live their lives. These campaigns rely on the same core argument: that certain ideas are inherently dangerous to young people and must therefore be restricted. But that framing misrepresents an important reality: if lawmakers genuinely want to address harms that young people experience online, they should start by listening to young people themselves. When EFF spoke directly with young people about their online experiences, they overwhelmingly rejected restrictions on their access to the internet and came back with nuanced and diverse perspectives. Once that principle—that certain ideas are inherently dangerous—is accepted, the internet, once a symbol of free expression, connection, creativity, and innovation, becomes the next logical target. Once that principle—that certain ideas are inherently dangerous—is accepted, the internet, once a symbol of free expression, connection, creativity, and innovation, becomes the next logical target. This also wouldn’t be the first time a vulnerable group is used as a prop to advance internet censorship laws. We’ve seen this playbook during the debate over FOSTA/SESTA, where many of the same advocates claimed to speak for trafficking victims/survivors and sex workers, while pushing legislation that ultimately censored online speech and harmed the very communities it invoked. It’s a familiar pattern: invoke a vulnerable group, frame certain speech as a threat, and use that as a way to expand government control over the flow of information. And as we said in the fight against FOSTA : if lawmakers are serious about addressing harms to particular communities, they should start by talking to those communities. This means that lawmakers seeking to address online harms to young people should be talking to young people, not groups who claim their interests. Rep. Finke Was Not Radical. She Was Right. The Paxton case, and the coalition backing age verification laws in the U.S., shows us exactly why the messaging around these laws draws superficial support from parents and lawmakers. But we’ve heard the quiet part said out loud before. Marsha Blackburn, a sponsor of the federal Kids Online Safety Act, has said that her goal with the legislation was to address what she called “the transgender” in society. When lawmakers and advocacy groups frame queer existence itself as a threat to young people, age-verification laws become ideological enforcement instead of regulatory policy. When lawmakers and advocacy groups frame queer existence itself as a threat to young people, age-verification laws become ideological enforcement instead of regulatory policy. In defending free speech , privacy , and the right of young people to access truthful information about themselves, Rep. Leigh Finke was not radical—she was right. She was warning that broad, ideologically driven laws will be used to erase, silence, and isolate young people under the banner of child protection. What’s at stake in the fight against age verification is not just a single bill in a single state, or even multiple states, for that matter. It’s about whether “protecting children” becomes a legal pretext for embedding government control over the internet to enforce specific moral and religious judgments—judgments that deny marginalized people access to speech, community, history, and truth—into law. And more people in public office need the courage of Rep. Finke to call this out. Related Issues Age Verification and Age Gating: Resource Hub Free Speech LGBTQ+ Share It Share on Mastodon Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link Related Updates Update, February 25, 2026: In response to widespread pushback, Wisconsin lawmakers have removed the provision banning VPN services from S.B. 130 / A.B. 105. The bill now awaits Governor Tony Evers’ signature. While the removal of the VPN provision is a positive step, EFF continues to oppose the bill. Advocates ... Discord has begun rolling out mandatory age verification and the internet is, understandably, freaking out. We’ve written extensively about why age verification mandates are a censorship and surveillance nightmare. Discord’s shift only reinforces those concerns. Instead of respecting how most parents guide their kids towards healthy and educational content, KOSMA hands the control panel to Big Tech. That’s right—this bill would take power away from parents, and hand it over to the companies that lawmakers say are the problem. EFF is against age gating and age verification mandates, and we hope we’ll win in getting existing ones overturned and new ones prevented. But mandates are already in effect, and every day many people are asked to verify their age across the web, despite prominent cases of sensitive data getting... Age verification mandates are spreading fast, and they’re ushering in a new age of online surveillance, censorship, and exclusion for everyone—not just young people. Join EFF for a conversation about what we stand to lose as more governments push to age-gate the web. We'll break down how these laws work... In the name of 'protecting kids online,' Congress pushed forward legislation this year that could have severely undermined our privacy and stifled free speech. These bills would have mandated invasive age-verification checks for everyone online—adults and kids alike—handing unprecedented control to tech companies and government authorities.Lawmakers from both sides of... State and federal lawmakers have introduced multiple proposals in 2025 to curtail or outright block children and teenagers from accessing legal content on the internet. On top of violating minors’ First Amendment rights, these laws also actively harm minors who rely on the internet to find community and support, and... Age verification mandates won't magically keep young people safer online, but that has not stopped governments around the world spending 2025 implementing or attempting to introduce legislation requiring all online users to verify their ages before accessing the digital space. This blog also appears in our Age Verification Resource Hub : our one-stop shop for users seeking to understand what age-gating laws actually do, what’s at stake, how to protect yourself, and why EFF opposes all forms of age verification mandates. Head to EFF.org/Age to explore our resources and ... Age verification laws are proliferating fast across the United States and around the world, creating a dangerous and confusing tangle of rules about what we’re all allowed to see and do online. That's why today, we're launching EFF.org/Age, a one-stop shop for users seeking to understand what these laws actually... Share on Mastodon Share on X Share on Facebook Related Issues Age Verification and Age Gating: Resource Hub Free Speech LGBTQ+ Back to top Follow EFF: mastodon facebook instagram x Blue Sky youtube flicker linkedin tiktok threads Check out our 4-star rating on Charity Navigator . Contact General Legal Security Membership Press About Calendar Volunteer Victories History Internships Jobs Staff Diversity & Inclusion Issues Free Speech Privacy Creativity & Innovation Transparency International Security Updates Blog Press Releases Events Legal Cases Whitepapers EFFector Newsletter Press Press Contact Donate Join or Renew Membership Online One-Time Donation Online Giving Societies Corporate Giving and Sponsorship Shop Other Ways to Give Copyright (CC BY) Trademark Privacy Policy Thanks JavaScript license information