As times have changed, so have the conditions that previous laws and cases assumed. But the government’s compelling interest to protect children has not changed. It is possible to balance this compelling interest with existing law and liberty concerns. Legislation drafted to specifically ban free online porn wouldn’t mean targeting advertisers that place ads on those sites. It wouldn’t limit any official studio from producing content as permitted by current law. It would instead mandate that porn sites require visitors to sign up for an account and pay to view pornography. Payment options could range from a set price per video to a monthly or yearly subscription comparable to that of a streaming service such as Netflix. This is quite literally how all other major movie media companies make money. For example, companies such as Amazon, which allows Prime users to stream some free video content, require customers to pay the fee for a Prime account to watch the exclusives. Porn sites do no such thing; our children are worse off for it.

Unlike banning porn wholesale, which would mean the collapse of the porn industry, banning free online porn wouldn’t deprive the porn industry of its ability to contract with others or to post pornography online. Companies that own porn sites which mostly provide free content may still use advertising models to generate revenue, so it wouldn’t infringe on their deals with third parties. It would instead be drafted to address an online porn-induced public-health epidemic.