Protecting Minors Online: Its Importance, Where We Are, and Where We Can Go

By Nick Spencer

Danbury Institute Fellow

In November of 2024, the Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky, published an opinion piece pushing back on the state’s law requiring meaningful age verification to access pornographic material through online means. The author argued that such legislation—though receiving unanimous support in Kentucky’s General Assembly—constituted a “draconian” attempt to turn the Commonwealth into a “nanny state.” However, in the recent case of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025), the nation’s highest court—not to mention any person with a semblance of reason—disagreed with that author’s assessment.

For Christians, it can be easy to look at laws protecting children from online harm and stand in full agreement with such measures. As I said, any individual with a semblance of reason should theoretically see the value in the laws passed by 23 states around the country to limit the access of minors to harmful online material. However, as my father likes to say, “common sense isn’t so common anymore.”

How, then, can Christians make a compelling case for these legal measures in the public square, and what more can be done to further protect one of our nation’s most vulnerable populations from lifelong harm? Believers must first understand how to articulate a defense of reasonable government authority. Following this articulation, they must engage lawmakers in their state capitol and our nation’s capitol to encourage the appropriate use of this authority by passing various legislative packages that offer robust protections for children in an increasingly dangerous arena. This article serves to assist Christians in such endeavors by providing a biblically grounded case for government intervention in protecting minors online and further describes previously proposed or enacted measures which churches and church members can advocate for within their state or at the national level.

Protecting Children Online and Threats of a Nanny State

In the Courier-Journal piece cited above, the author makes a common argument used to discredit efforts to protect children from harmful material by appealing to the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech. Further, the author claims that any attempt to restrict access to the material also constitutes an invasion of privacy on the grounds that the material can be accessed from a private device in the privacy of one’s own home. These arguments, however, article fail in at least two respects: by failing to recognize (1) the state’s compelling interest in protecting children from harm, and (2) the state’s interest in restricting the private actions of individuals regardless of age if those private acts have a significant possibility to result in public harm.

To coherently argue that a governing authority is becoming a “nanny state,” “big brother,” or some other pejorative term, it must be demonstrated that the act in which the authority has engaged is one which is outside of their proper jurisdiction. But this begs the question “what is the government’s proper jurisdiction?”

Taken generally, most would agree that government exists to restrict and punish that which is evil or harmful while promoting that which is good (Rom 13:1-7). The use of methamphetamine is harmful to the individual and to the larger society, and thus it is prohibited and punished under the law (Eph 5:18). Getting married and having children is good for society, and thus it is encouraged through tax incentives and other means (Gen 1:28). If evidence exists that something is harmful to an individual’s life and the continued order of society, restricting that individual’s access to such material would most certainly be within the government’s interest to pursue.

Does such evidence exist for the use of pornographic material? The answer is clearly in the affirmative. A 2023 peer-reviewed report concludes, “Due to the explosion of new technologies, online pornography has risen to an alarming level, which has very injurious effects on societies and individuals. Therefore, it is high time to get rid of this addiction to protect our lives from its harmful effects.” Complicating the restriction of this material is Stanley v. Georgia (1969) which holds that states cannot prohibit citizens from possessing “obscene material.” Given the newly demonstrated physical and societal harms of pornography, I would argue that this case should be overturned.

Stanley notwithstanding, another Supreme Court case—Ginsberg v. New York (1968)—clearly and unequivocally holds that governments have a compelling interest in restricting a minor’s ability to procure obscene materials. Because pornographic material is now so widely available to anyone with internet access, and because children are increasingly given access to the internet at younger ages, Kentucky—and 22 other states—introduced common sense requirements that those who provide pornographic material online must provide meaningful verification that those accessing the material are not minors.

In the same way that adults must certify that they are over 21 when they purchase alcohol online, and in the same way adults must verify that they are over 18 when purchasing pornographic material in-person, state legislatures are simply applying that same standard to a medium which previously was not legally obligated to provide that age verification.

Methods of meaningful online age verification already exist as mentioned above with alcohol purchases. The refusal of pornography providers to implement this legal requirement simply cannot be on the basis of its impossibility. Rather, what the refusal exposes is the business interest that these companies have in maintaining the ability of children to access material as addictive as hardcore drugs. There is no conceivable circumstance in which the government would be acting responsibly—or be upholding their biblical duty—by allowing minors to freely access that material without restraint. Rather, the government must enact clear restrictions and associated verification measures that prevent children for procuring this obscene material. Further, six states have also passed legislation requiring age verification and parental consent for minors to use their smartphone’s app store or to access social media platforms.

The Road Ahead

Having established that government properly ought to concern itself with protecting minors online, it remains to be answered how individual states—and the nation as a whole—should proceed. First, there is good news: as stated above, nearly one half of all states have enacted laws protecting children from unfettered access to pornographic material online. That reality can and should be celebrated as a step in the right direction. Six states have enacted additional legislation aimed at protecting children from the harms of social media—which can serve as an additional access point for minors to view pornographic material. These results are good, but it is simply not enough for Christians to be content with the slow pace of change on such a vital matter.

Church members can and should ensure that their state of residence has both of the above-mentioned measures in place. For an easy way to determine how your state has responded to this need, a map can be found here which is maintained by the Family Policy Alliance—a Christian political advocacy group that has been instrumental in spearheading these protections. If your state has not taken the proper steps to protect children online, I would encourage you to reach out to your State Representative and State Senator. Speaking from experience, calls and emails truly do make a profound difference.

On a more local level, you could get involved in the fight to remove cellphones from school classrooms and ensuring that your local school district has strong policies in place to prevent access to inappropriate materials including access to social media website and online gambling. You would likely be shocked at just how much young people can access on their cellphones while at school—sometimes even being asked to create social media accounts for certain assignments without parental permission.

Finally, at the national level, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced the SCREEN Act—designed to enact these commonsense protections at the national level. While protections at the state level are important, there is only so much that a state can accomplish. When these protections border on questions of interstate commerce, or when a company responsible for publishing or creating harmful material is headquartered in a state that will never truly hold them accountable, the ball must be in Congress’ court. All of these measures are important and more must be done as technology continues to rapidly advance—especially as it pertains to Artificial Intelligence. It is likely to be an uphill battle, but as Paul reminds us in Galatians, we must not grow weary in doing good (Gal 6:9).

---

Nick Spencer serves as the Director of the Tom Minnery Fellowship for the Center for Christian Virtue in Columbus, Ohio and as a Danbury Institute Fellow.