Governments around the world are intensifying efforts to regulate online pornography, frequently implementing policies like the 24-hour removal rule, which mandates that platforms delete illegal or harmful content within a day of being notified. These actions are driven by growing concerns about the accessibility of explicit material, particularly its impact on minors, and the need to curb online sexual exploitation. Judicial systems are deeply involved, balancing enforcement with legal protections like free speech. In India, for instance, recent amendments to the Information Technology (IT) Act have strengthened requirements for intermediaries—such as social media platforms and website hosts—to act swiftly, removing objectionable content within 24 hours or facing penalties. This aligns with a broader international trend toward tighter control over digital spaces.
In the United States, the judiciary is actively shaping this landscape. As of January 2025, the Supreme Court is deliberating Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a case challenging Texas’s age-verification law for pornographic websites. The court must decide if such regulations violate First Amendment rights under strict scrutiny or serve a compelling state interest in protecting youth. Similarly, India’s Supreme Court has pushed for robust measures against child pornography, urging expert committees to devise strategies for rapid content takedowns. These examples illustrate how governments and courts are collaborating to enforce quick-response frameworks like the 24-hour rule, while wrestling with the ethical and legal complexities involved. Critics argue that such policies might infringe on freedoms or fail to address underlying issues, whereas supporters see them as essential for managing the challenges of the digital era. The debate continues as these measures evolve.
