InIn a landmark 6-3 ruling destined to give abstinence-only health teachers a throbbing sense of purpose, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided against the adult entertainment industry in a First Amendment case so naked in its implications, even C-SPAN blushed.
The ruling stems from Freedom of Expression vs. The Entire State of Utah, a lawsuit brought by adult performers, studios, and several confused OnlyFans subscribers who just wanted to tip their favorite goth MILF. The plaintiffs argued that new digital age-verification requirements—such as submitting a DNA swab, high school GPA, and a notarized purity ring—were unconstitutional barriers to free speech and lawful access to content.
But the Court wasn’t having it. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito declared that, “The Founding Fathers didn’t storm Philadelphia in wool trousers and powdered wigs so the modern citizen could freely stream a video titled Busty Constitutionalist Takes on Six Justices in D.C.”
He further clarified that while the Constitution does protect speech, “moist speech,” “panting monologues,” and “anything filmed in POV” are now subject to government supervision. “Freedom of expression,” Alito wrote, “is sacred—unless it involves nudity, pleasure, or someone being called ‘Stepbro.’”
Justice Gorsuch added, “This ruling does not outlaw pornography outright. We are merely reminding Americans that they may only view it under the following conditions:
- Alone.
- At night.
- With the blinds closed.
- While pretending they’re reading The Federalist Papers.
- And only after swearing an oath that they’ll feel bad about it afterward.”
Justice Barrett, ever the fan of both piety and polyester, weighed in with a separate concurring opinion:
“If God had intended us to watch people make love on camera, He would have invented Instagram filters that don’t lead directly to damnation.”
Justice Thomas recused himself from comment, but his wife was spotted later that afternoon googling, “Can you impeach a dildo?”
Meanwhile, Justice Kavanaugh clarified, “This does not apply to wet t-shirt contests, Girls Gone Wild box sets, or Hooters calendars, all of which I cherish deeply as American institutions. As long as it’s printed, vaguely misogynistic, and smells like a truck stop restroom, it’s protected.”
The dissenting opinion, delivered by Justice Sotomayor, torched the majority’s hypocrisy:
“It’s fascinating how this Court believes money is speech, corporations are people, and Jesus wrote the Constitution in English—but a consenting adult having an orgasm on camera is tyranny.”
Chief Justice Roberts closed the session by offering a final metaphor:
“Pornography, like democracy, should be hard to access, poorly funded, and full of unrealistic expectations.”
Reactions from the adult industry were swift. Legendary performer and accidental freedom fighter Lexi LaRoux tweeted, “The Supreme Court just banned fun. Also, the camera adds ten pounds of oppression.”
Producers and studios announced a pivot to workaround platforms like “SlightlyMoist.gov,” a proposed nonprofit educational site funded entirely by awkward teenage clicks.
When asked for comment, a Court spokesperson said, “Look, we know full well y’all are still going to watch it. We’re just here to make it harder—pun intended. That’s what we do now. We don’t solve problems. We rebrand repression.”
In a closing twist that proves America is still deeply unserious, HBO has greenlit a miniseries inspired by the decision:
“Gavel Bang: Objection Overruled – A Tale of Constitutional Thrust.”
It’s being directed by the guy who made Magic Mike XXL and scored by Ken Burns’ horny nephew.
Filming begins this fall in a deconsecrated Hobby Lobby.