US Supreme Court ushers in new era of regulation The internet’s free ride is over

In a sweeping and sobering article, The Atlantic chronicles a turning point in American internet policy: the Supreme Court’s decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which signals the end of a 30-year experiment in digital deregulation. What began in the 1990s as a bold, libertarian vision of the internet as a free-speech haven is now yielding to a new era—one in which child safety trumps digital absolutism, and the government is no longer afraid to regulate the most powerful communication medium in history.

The Court upheld a Texas law requiring adult-content websites to verify users’ age through official ID or third-party systems, a move that imposes significant logistical burdens on adults but is seen as necessary to shield minors from harmful material. The 6–3 majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, applied “intermediate scrutiny”—a lower constitutional standard that allows laws to survive if they’re substantially related to an important government interest. In contrast, the liberal minority argued for “strict scrutiny,” which would demand that the law be the least restrictive means to achieve its goal.

While the ruling directly impacts adult websites, The Atlantic rightly stresses that its real significance lies in precedent. By validating a regulatory model under intermediate scrutiny, the Court has cleared the path for a flood of similar child-protection laws—many already passed in over 20 states, with more on the way. These laws are likely to target not only pornography but also social media, artificial intelligence, and other digital services.

This stands in stark contrast to earlier landmark cases like Reno v. ACLU (1997), which struck down the Communications Decency Act and celebrated the internet as a frontier of free expression. Back then, the justices warned against reducing adult access to the level appropriate for children. But as the Paxton majority notes, the internet of today—ubiquitous, addictive, and algorithmically curated—is not the static, dial-up experiment of the 1990s.

The article situates Free Speech Coalition within a larger trend: the erosion of Silicon Valley’s legal exceptionalism. For decades, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act functioned as a de facto First Amendment for tech platforms, shielding them from liability for user-generated content. That cultural and legal immunity is now crumbling under the weight of bipartisan concern for children’s mental health, online exploitation, and societal fragmentation.

Crucially, The Atlantic highlights a key bipartisan truth: protecting children is one of the last politically unifying causes in the U.S. This consensus has already driven proposals such as the Kids Online Safety Act and California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code. With Free Speech Coalition offering constitutional cover, these laws now seem far more likely to stick.

In conclusion, The Atlantic frames the Supreme Court’s ruling as not just a legal verdict but a philosophical pivot. The laissez-faire internet is over. What replaces it remains uncertain—but one thing is clear: regulation is no longer the enemy. It is now the battleground.

By Vugar Khalilov