Kansas Sues MET ART under AV Law, Should I be worried?
 

If I have servers in Kansas and my xxx photo websites are accessible to everyone without verification, and I don't have age verification, am I at risk? Can I be sued?

https://www.xbiz.com/news/286688/kan...r-under-av-law

"Should I move my servers and block people from Kansas?"m

I am NOT a lawyer but based on the information at hand your answer is yes you are at risk

Kansas passed an age verification law in 2024 that requires websites where 25% or more of content is "harmful to minors" to verify users are 18 or older. Without proper age verification for your adult websites, you face significant legal risk.

The Kansas Attorney General is actively enforcing this law with multiple lawsuits already filed against adult website operators. In May 2025, sites including Chaturbate and Jerkmate were sued for failing to implement age verification.

Penalties include fines up to $10,000 per violation, and parents can sue for damages starting at $50,000. Some major adult sites like Pornhub have chosen to block Kansas users entirely rather than implement verification.

A Supreme Court case (Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton) is reviewing a similar Texas law, but until a ruling is issued, the Kansas law remains enforceable.

Your options include implementing proper age verification, moving servers outside Kansas, blocking Kansas users, or waiting for the Supreme Court ruling (though this last option carries significant risk as enforcement continues).

Libz pwnd 🍿😎🍿

:helpme:helpme:helpme

There are soooooooooooo many ways to block adult content if you want to block it completely at your house... Definitely could see bad actors getting an old laptop, browsing adult for awhile on it, then a year later claiming their kid is mentally scarred from porn use and suing every website on the list. :disgust

I remember the days when spamming porn was still legal

Already happening.

https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/...uits-explainer

The plaintiff’s allege that Q.R.'s mother installed filters on his personal devices, but claim the minor was still able to access adult sites using an old laptop in his mother’s closet which did not have a filter installed.

Over a period of several months, he allegedly accessed adult sites more than 175 times. The lawsuit claims that adult sites are liable for damages of approximately $75,000 for time Q.R. visited a site. While Kansas law provides statutory damages of $50,000 for violations of the law, plaintiffs are asking for additional damages citing “pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement and mental anguish,” “psychological injury,” “past and future loss of enjoyment and pleasure of living,” and “past and future necessary medical expenses.”

So 23.7% harmful is ok.

as said I am not a lawyer and how they come up with that figure I don't know

perhaps that explains why some tubes have swapped out many of their porn vids for recordings of city council meetings & other irrelevant nonsense

We are literally born naked.
How does one define "harmful for minors"?
It would be literally be illegal to test if it's harmful for minors.
The old time were children could literally see animals doing it, in the parents farm, seems very conceptual.

Also porn is like fissile material, above a given concentration(25% here), it creates some kind of chain reaction that has to be harmful be children... but not elsewhere.

This is nothing less that this Salami technic against freedom of speech:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sala...ics_(politics)

That's literally an attack against what people wants to see, after being ashamed of liking it.
Then on the website of big newspapers, you see usually a couple of comments, mostly all against porn, but later you finish to ear that the number of subscriptions for VPN skyrocketed.

Obviously the problem is likely not because they care of children, otherwise they wouldn't attack with this 25% of adult content thing.
You can still accumulate with 25%.
Teenagers without women will anyway look for it.
What is this society that shows everything (nudity is common) but then wonders that people go looking (sensual nudity).
I can forecast that a porn ban will likely push some teenagers to generative AI.
It feels possible to code a generative AI to create porn pictures based on an AI solely used for censorship.
Censorship AI are trained on porn pictures.
I guess a ban that is wide enough could probably create this generation...
The problem is that i don't find picture and video generative Ai so useful. I would rather that they study data...

Reminiscing on the olden days (a few months ago) of folks (and lawyers) here bragging about how this will never happen, project 2025 is fake and Trump is the most porn president we ever had 🧘