Experts warn bipartisan 'adult content' bill in Arizona could have far-reaching consequences

EDITOR'S NOTE: This interview contains content that may not be suitable for all audiences. 

A bill that passed out of the Arizona House with a supermajority could have far-reaching implications for how and where people post adult content online.

And this journalist reported it’s a mirror of language in Project 2025.

Joseph Darius Jaafari is founder and editor in chief of LOOKOUT, and he spoke to The Show about House Bill 2133.

HeroMade Photography

Full conversation

JOSEPH JAFAARI: So, on its face, it does something very basic, which is it requires people who are uploading adult content to get age verification as well as consent from the person or people that are being uploaded to the internet.

And it really is focused on these websites like X, like Reddit, like BlueSky, which people use every single day, but they also very much allow people to upload very explicit adult content, people who are OnlyFans or something like that use it for marketing.

And so this bill would make it that anybody who uses these websites to get age verification consent and requires those companies to keep a record of it and then destroy that record.

LAUREN GILGER: OK, so a lot involved in this. What does the sponsor of this bill, Republican Rep. Nick Kupper, say it's intended to do? He's going after revenge porn things like that.

JAFAARI: So again, on its face, it would seem that the bill is attempting to attack revenge porn, which is somebody uploading sexual material that is against your will, oftentimes retaliation, as well as child sexual abuse imagery, that is what the bill sponsor, Nick Kupper, has said.

However, when you really look at the bill and when you really look at the language, tech advocates, legal experts, tech experts, they all say the bill's wording is so incredibly vague that it really doesn't do just that.

It really sweeps in a lot of other people's people into this where, you know, anybody who is just simply uploading a clip from a rated R movie might have to get, would have to get, not might, would have to get the IDs of the people being depicted in the film as well as the consent of those people.

And so that is very much the broad language that all these tech advocates and tech experts are saying, “hey, this bill is doing a lot more than the bill sponsor is saying.”

GILGER: OK, and there seems to be some question about what would be defined as  “adult content” here? Like what about political satire, like things like that, that kind of blur the lines?

JAFAARI: It's not just the definition of adult content. It's also like what's offensive or, you know, dangerous for children, right? So in the Senate hearing that this, so this got passed out of the House and went on to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And in that committee hearing, Sen. Analise Ortiz said, you know, what about this clip about Satan having sex with Donald Trump on "South Park?

GILGER: Pretty famous sketch. Yeah.

JAFAARI: And that's been shared across multiple platforms, including on X, including on Reddit. It's been widespread. And Rep. Kupper said, yes, that would be required to get Donald Trump's consent to have that uploaded.

And from then, that's kind of where lobbyists reached out to me, where tech industry leaders reached out to me, so that is a bright red flag.

It's one thing if we're trying to attack revenge porn or child sexual abuse imagery, but if people are saying that this bill can be used to censor that kind of speech, which whether or not you agree with it or not, it's completely legal and arguably not really dangerous to children. That is a bright red line in the sand.

GILGER: That's a very interesting line. OK, but this passed out of the House at the state Legislature with a super majority, which is pretty rare.

JAFAARI: What I've heard from different lawmakers who actually maybe voted in favor is that they weren't quite clear on what this bill actually did because it is being promoted as a a bill that would protect child sexual abuse of injury from being uploaded from revenge porn and didn't really take a look at what the legal implications of this law would be or really what the far-ranging complications of this would be when it comes to the burden on tech websites to make sure that everybody who uploads something is going to be getting consent.

So what I feel and kind of what I've gathered from the conversations I've had is that they weren't quite aware.

However, this wouldn't be the first time that the Legislature has passed an anti-porn kind of bill with the supermajority and having the governor sign it last year.

A similar bill that basically that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of, which is age verification for porn websites, passed through the House as well, even though civil rights advocates and tech advocates were saying this has consequences where these websites will shut down in Arizona, and they did.

GILGER: And they did. Yeah, they did. Could this end up in court? Should it pass?

JAFAARI: Oh yeah. Everybody I've spoken to said this will end up in court. This will end up in cost litigation because, just think about it from the implementation fact of it.

So what tech experts I've talked to as well as tech lobbyists for like, you know, the Center for Democracy and Technology for the Motion Picture Association, what they're kind of saying is, listen, if this gets passed, what exactly happens?

Basically, one of two things happens. Either we restrict content in Arizona, which is essentially saying we have to shut down our platform for millions of Americans inside these states for multiple platforms, or what we have to do is monitor every single item that is uploaded and then use a very broad definition that isn't really defined in the law to figure out what is dangerous to children, what is adult content.

I think of what might be affected. And I think of, for example, the Robert Mapplethorpe photos that made it all the way the Supreme Court and Supreme Court said, yes, this is art when taken to context. However, if somebody wanted to upload that to X or Reddit or Blue Sky, they'd have to get the consent of the model, who's likely dead. And also the consent of Robert Mapplethorpe, who is dead.

So it's one of those things where tech companies say this is going to cause an undue burden and what likely will happen is what we've seen with the porn websites, which is just completely shut down in Arizona.

GILGER: OK, so major implications. This also, it sounds like, mirrors some language in Project 2025, this kind of big Heritage Foundation document that was basically intended to be the blueprint for Trump 2.0.

JAFAARI: There is no way around, you know, the implications of this bill and its direct line to Project 2025, you know, there are a lot of people who say that this is kind of a bureaucratic mirror image, because what essentially is happening when it comes to pornography in America is kind of what we saw with conservative attacks on Roe v. Wade.

It's that it's not simply saying porn is illegal, which is what the Project 2025 mandate for leadership wants, right? Instead, it's making it bureaucratically impossible to have porn online. This is one of those steps where it just is easier to shut down than it is to, you know, go through all these bureaucratic processes.

GILGER: So you have sources who say the governor will sign this. What did the governor's office have to say?

JAFAARI: The governor's office said that, you know, they haven't made, and it is true, the governor has not made any kind of comment for or against this bill.

However, what has happened is the governor's office has reached out to lobbyists who represent companies that are against this bill and have said, try to work with Nick Kupper on this bill.

And the governor's office has said, hey, we're just engaging stakeholders as we do with every single bill. But they don't do that with every single bill. There's over 2,000 bills in the state Capitol right now that are going through.

And some of those bills just will not be signed by the governor. And the governor does not reach out to have, you know, opponents of those bills work with lawmakers, right? They're just going to get vetoed.

What lobbyists have told me is that when the governor's office reaches out, it is a direct sign that there is something in the bill that is interesting to the governor to sign.

Now, there have been talks about amendments to the bill to make sure that it doesn't violate federal law because the bill itself requires companies to remove all the documentation of age verification and consent. That is against federal law because keep in mind these adult websites that do exist already have to follow this, and they have to maintain these records. The state law would require them to delete those records, which is against federal law.

So there's amendments right now to try to fix that, but there aren't really amendments right now, as far as I know, that are, you know, trying to fix the general language.

What we do know is that lobbyists have tried to make contact with Nick Kupper, and his office has not responded, to make those amendments to work with that. So it's unclear what version the governor wants to see, whether it's a very pared-back version of this, whether it's just a simple amendment for the federal law. We just don't know. And she hasn't said it.