404 Media

2026-08-04 17:41:56

The SCREEN Act is a Christian Nationalist Nightmare

On Wednesday morning, Ted Cruz’s Senate Commerce Committee will convene on five bills aimed at age verification and “child safety.” The bills each have their own issues when it comes to privacy, data collection, parental rights, and free speech. But one bill, the partisan Republican SCREEN Act, is a Christian nationalist nightmare.

Utah Senator Mike Lee introduced the Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act in February 2025, alongside exclusively Republican cosponsors and supporters Senators John Curtis, Jim Banks, and Representative Mary Miller.

The SCREEN Act would require every website that includes even one piece of what the legislation describes as “harmful to minors” to verify visitors’ ages. It defines “harmful to minors” as content that “depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or lewd exhibition of the genitals;” is “obscene” or “child pornography;” or “appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.”

Unlike the many laws now in place around the U.S. that apply to sites made up of at least one third adult content, like porn sites and some social media platforms, SCREEN would place the burden and risk of verifying users’ ages to every website on the internet that falls under the law, which would be most sites with user-generated content and also mainstream entertainment platforms like Netflix. It also attacks virtual private networks (VPNs) by requiring sites to verify based on IP addresses; many people in states that have age verification laws in place use VPNs to get around submitting sensitive personal data like ID and biometrics to a smattering of third-party websites in use today. Critics say the SCREEN Act would be a privacy and free speech disaster.

And the agenda of its sponsors is clear: “Internet pornography has infected our culture and corroded the vulnerable minds of America’s kids, with the average age of initial exposure being 12 years old. That’s appalling,” Banks said in Lee’s press release.

A number of religious, conservative, Christian nationalist, and anti-pornography groups are in support of the bill, according to the press release from Lee’s office. They include the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (which recently represented a Kansas mother who sued multiple porn sites because her son found her old laptop and used it to watch Chaturbate), the National Decency Coalition, the Ethics and Public Policy Center (which is “working to apply the riches of the Jewish and Christian traditions to contemporary questions of law, culture, and politics,” according to its website), the Family Policy Alliance (whose stated mission is to “advance biblical values through civic engagement”), the Family Research Council (whose “mission is to serve in the kingdom of God by championing faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview”), and many more.

Heritage Action, a conservative lobbying group and one of the organizations Lee lists in support of the SCREEN Act, is a sister organization to the Heritage Foundation, which authored Project 2025. Heritage Action “works with lawmakers to implement Heritage Foundation solutions,” according to the Heritage Foundation website. This is important because of how Project 2025, the playbook for right-wing and extremist conservative leadership, has influenced policies and lawmaking in America in the last few years of the Trump Administration. That stretches from attacks on programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion, to attacks on trans and queer people, to turning the FBI into a political entity.

Half of the US Now Requires You to Upload Your ID or Scan Your Face to Watch Porn
Missouri’s age verification law, enacted on November 30, is the halfway mark for the sweep of age verification laws across the country.
404 MediaSamantha Cole

One of Project 2025’s stated goals is to redefine and eradicate pornography: “Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection,” the playbook says, calling for imprisonment of pornographers but also educators and librarians. “And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”

The Senate Commerce Committee will also debate and mark up the text of the Youth AI Privacy Act which would require chatbots to disclose they’re not human among other features like limiting data retention; the CHATBOT Act which would require AI companies to build “family account” systems where parents can monitor kids’ activity; the Children’s Artificial Intelligence Toy Safety Act which would create a federal study into toys that include AI components; and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).

KOSA would impose a legal “duty of care” on social media platforms to prevent and mitigate promotion of suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual exploitation, and advertisements for products like tobacco. KOSA has been introduced, and failed, multiple times since its first introduction in 2022; it has bipartisan lawmaker support but is extremely unpopular across all sides of the political spectrum among groups that care about freedom of speech because of its potential to increase censorship.

New Bill Would Make All Pornography a Federal Crime in the U.S.
Republican Senator Mike Lee introduced Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (again) last week, which would criminalize porn at the federal level.
404 MediaSamantha Cole

“Whatever disclaimers and exceptions the bill includes, the practical effect is unchanged,” the Electronic Freedom Foundation recently wrote about KOSA. “When platforms face liability for content that someone later claims contributed to harms like anxiety, eating disorders, or substance use, the safest response is to remove lawful speech or shut down forums discussing those topics altogether.”

Unlike KOSA and many of the other age verification laws that have spread across the country, the SCREEN Act does not have bipartisan support. It’s the latest in Lee’s repeated attempts to criminalize content he and his co-sponsors personally consider immoral. Last year, Lee introduced the now-stalled Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) for the third time. IODA would change the 1973 “Miller Test” for determining what qualifies as obscene, and seeks to make all pornography illegal at the federal level. “Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children,” Lee said in a press release. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

New Bill Would Make All Pornography a Federal Crime in the U.S.

^{Samantha Cole (404 Media)}

404 Media

2026-06-04 14:33:57

Watch These Judges Rip Into Lawyers For Citing Cases That Don't Exist

In the last few years, we’ve heard case after case where attorneys used generative AI and were caught including fake citations, quotes, and other major errors in their filings. This generally plays out in dockets, where their opponents or judges spot them and, in the polite language of the courts, scold them for wasting everyone’s time and being a disgrace to the legal profession. Sometimes, this results in serious sanctions. But it's always entertaining to read.

In an appeal hearing last month, a court’s live stream captured this happening on camera in real time, with an attorney caught for likely using AI-fabricated citations. On May 20, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Justices Valerie Brathwaite Nelson and Hector LaSalle reamed out that lawyer and his opposing counsel for more than 20 minutes, calling the situation “striking, concerning, disappointing, and saddening.”

The plaintiff in the case, Judith Landberg, is suing the city of New York after she tripped on some askew bricks on the sidewalk that were pushed up by tree roots. In that hearing, her lawyer, Michael Sanders, was attempting to argue the definition of a sidewalk. The full video is here, and the portion about fake citations begins a little after the 19 minute mark.

“In preparing for this oral argument and reviewing the brief of appellant, it came to the attention of the court that the brief submitted by plaintiffs cites at least three cases that appeared to be fictitious,” Nelson said. “None of these cases, nor the quoted language, appears to exist.”

Not only did Sanders cite cases that don’t exist, Nelson said, he cited 10 other cases that appear to misrepresent the law. “How do you respond?” Nelson asked.

0:00
/2:48
1×

Sanders instantly started digging a hole, saying that he wasn’t prepared to speak on those specific citations. Nelson promptly cut him off. “Before you go any further,” she said, “let me point out to you that Rule 3.3 A of the rules of professional conduct indicates that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”

He stammered. “If there's any citations that are incorrect, my deepest apologies,” he said.

“Where did you get them from?” LaSalle asked.

“I don't know what these cases were specifically,” Sanders said.

LaSalle and Nelson grilled Sanders for several more minutes about the citations and where he got them. The judges didn’t bring up generative AI specifically, but considering the growing epidemic of lawyers including fake citations while using AI to draft arguments and appeals, it’s almost certainly what they’re alluding to. Attorneys caught using AI in other cases have blamed everything from head colds to being in a rush, to paralegals. Judges, in general, seem sick of it.

“Just so you know, because I don't want you to dig a bigger hole here, you're citing principles that don't exist,” LaSalle said. “Let me tell you something. We saw this last week. I was hopeful that, in preparation for today, that you were going to read this and say, 'Oops, we made a mistake, Judge.’ It happens sometimes, right? That's what I was hoping for. We didn't get that. Should we give you some time right now to go look these cases up?”
playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2…
Sanders replied that it would probably take longer than 15 minutes. They went back and forth, with LaSalle and Nelson taking turns trying to impress upon Sanders that this is very, very bad.

Ross Friscia, the attorney representing the owner of the property that faces the sidewalk, stood up before the judges next. He started to speak, but LaSalle wasn’t finished with the dressing-down. “He’s raising a court of appeal standard that doesn’t exist,” LaSalle said, interrupting Friscia. “He was using it as a component of his argument, and you didn't think you should bring it to our attention?”

“I didn't notice in particular that the principle of law that he was citing was incorrect,” Friscia said.

“I'm sorry, I'm going to give you every opportunity to make your argument,” LaSalle said. “But I'm befuddled. I honestly am. I'm absolutely—and I'm not here to—lawyers make mistakes. It's not an easy profession. I don’t want to sit here beating up on lawyers, but we rely on the bar so much in what we do. So the first thing that I did, I don't want to speak for my colleagues, but after seeing what he wrote, when I went to your papers, I expected to see something referencing [...] It wasn't one case, counsel, it was several cases, and you didn't see fit to bring it to our attention either. It's just striking to me.”

Friscia, now with the fear of the bar in him, apologized profusely. “Your honor, I apologize to the court. I will do further due diligence going forward from this point on.”

“I hope so,” LaSalle said. “You should apologize to your client, not to me.”

“Yes, I apologize for that,” Friscia said. “And I will, going forward, check every single case, even if it stands for, you know, general principles of law, like the construed liberally to effectuate remedial purpose, and things like that. I will bring them to the court’s attention.”

At this, Nelson jumped in: “The misrepresentations here are of such a degree that they could not merely reflect a difference of opinion,” she said. “As an appellate court attorney, you would have to, if you were doing the work and reading the briefs and responding to the briefs, you would have to notice that something in the wording of the main brief for the appellant was wrong, if not many things being wrong. It's concerning because we are all officers of the court, and there is a responsibility that you also have to notify the court to do the work, notify the court when these types of misrepresentations and fictitious cases and fictitious citations and misrepresenting the holding of a court of appeals case. I could go on and on, but if you read the brief and looked at the cases, you would have realized it was your responsibility also to alert the court.”

Friscia said he tailors briefs to respond to specific issues but didn’t keep explaining himself for long; he apologized again, repeated that he’d be more thorough next time, made his point about the city being responsible for the askew bricks, and sat down.

Subscribe

Join the newsletter to get the latest updates.

Success

Great! Check your inbox and click the link.

Error

Please enter a valid email address.

Next up was Elizabeth Freedman, an attorney representing the City of New York. She got the same questioning from Nelson: “So, how do you explain your failure to bring to the attention of this court that a brief was filed with this court by appellant's counsel with apparent fabrications and misrepresentations?”

Freedman tried to explain. “I certainly read the briefs,” she said. “I certainly read all of the briefs here, but I certainly didn't focus on it, because it was not our issue. And I do apologize to the court for not catching that, but I tended to focus more on the issue of prior written notice.”

When Freedman finished, all of the attorneys stood up and attempted to leave quickly. “Don’t go anywhere yet,” LaSalle said. “Have a seat. I just want to say this to you all. This is a very distressing situation. I know this is an outlier. We're very fortunate, my colleagues and I, we have the privilege of working with what I think is one of the best benches in the state, the bars in the state. For me the appellate bar here in the city of New York and its surrounding suburbs, we see excellent work. For me personally, it's been a highlight of my career to have the opportunity to work with such outstanding judges, and to have the opportunity to work with such outstanding lawyers,” he said. “A part of this profession, a big component of it, is that there's an element of trust, and mistakes are made. We make mistakes as judges, we've made mistakes. I don't want to speak for my colleagues, but I dare say that we've all made mistakes as practitioners, and we work very hard when there are mistakes to try to give the benefit of doubt to those lawyers who practice before us. We know how difficult your respective jobs are. And in reviewing this, I know my colleagues and I have tried to give every benefit of the doubt to the lawyers before us.”

He went on to say that the citing of false cases that don't exist and quotes that have no support in the law is “well below the standard we expect from the bar.” He said it’s “striking, concerning, disappointing, and saddening to think that members of the bar would forward cases to a court that don't exist, and to think that the lawyers on the other side of that didn’t read it for whatever reason, didn’t check it.”

Sanders got up and tried to apologize again before leaving. “You’ll have an opportunity to apologize in a different way,” LaSalle said. “Why don’t you do your research and find out how that happened, though?”

Sanders and his law firm were ordered to show cause as to why they shouldn’t be sanctioned. On Wednesday, Landberg’s case was dismissed.

Judges Are Fed up With Lawyers Using AI That Hallucinate Court Cases

Another lawyer was caught using AI and not checking the output for accuracy, while a previously-reported case just got hit with sanctions.

^{Samantha Cole (404 Media)}