News

Tennessee Bill Would Require Warnings on Adult Stores

April 16, 2026

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The Tennessee Senate has passed a bill requiring adult stores, theaters and other establishments in the state to post warning signs cautioning patrons that they “may be contributing” to sexual assault and human trafficking.

SB 2481/HB 2314 would add provisions to Tennessee’s Adult-Oriented Establishment Registration Act of 1998, prohibiting county boards from issuing licenses to covered businesses unless a sign is posted at each entrance stating: “Attention: By engaging in this type of entertainment, you may be contributing to an increase in domestic assault, rape or sexual assault, and human trafficking.”

Additionally, establishments that sell or rent “sexually oriented materials, including print, video, and other media” must also post signs on all displays of such material, stating: “Attention: By purchasing, borrowing, or using this pornographic material, you may be contributing to an increase in domestic assault, rape or sexual assault, and human trafficking.”

The bill requires that signs must be at least 8 1/2 by 11 inches, and printed in at least 48-point type in boldface black letters on a white background.

“Adult-oriented establishments” include bookstores, theaters and any other business that principally offers “sexually-oriented material, devices, or paraphernalia or specified sexual activities, or any combination or form thereof, whether printed, filmed, recorded or live and that restricts or purports to restrict admission to adults or to any class of adults.”

Industry attorney Corey Silverstein told XBIZ, “Conditioning licensure on compelled speech like this raises serious First Amendment concerns, particularly where the government is requiring private businesses to convey a stigmatizing message about their own lawful activity.”

The issue of “compelled speech” has also arisen in other states, where legislators have introduced online age verification bills that would require adult sites to post notices warning users of alleged physical, mental and social harms associated with pornography — despite a previous federal court ruling against such requirements.

Beyond the constitutional issues, Silverstein noted, this kind of policy further marginalizes workers in the adult industry by relying on highly disputed claims rather than evidence-based approaches to addressing violence and exploitation.

“If the goal is public safety, lawmakers should pursue solutions rooted in data,” Silverstein said. “Not messaging mandates that single out a legal industry for moral condemnation.”

A report by the Memphis Flyer, a Tennessee newsweekly, raises serious doubts about the reasoning behind the bill, noting vague, shaky evidence and tenuous connections put forward by the bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Janice Bowling, to justify the warning signs.

The bill next goes before the state House of Representatives. If passed by the House and signed into law by the governor, the legislation would become effective immediately.

LONDON — The House of Commons has modified amendments to the U.K.’s pending Crime and Policing Bill, including provisions regulating “step” content, content featuring adults role-playing as minors, and performers’ ability to withdraw consent.

As XBIZ reported in March, the House of Lords, the U.K.’s upper house of Parliament, approved amendments to the bill that would invalidate talent contracts, and outlaw “step” porn and content in which adult performers appear to portray minors. However, there has been ongoing tension between the Lords and the government over the amendments, and last week, the government indicated that it was backing amendments that would somewhat limit their scope.

The House of Commons has now published its proposed changes to the Lords’ amendments, in accordance with the government’s position. Those revisions include:

Limiting the proposed ban on “step” content. Under the House of Commons amendments, depictions of incest involving blood relatives would be outlawed, but the “step” ban would apply only if a performer is portraying someone under the age of 18. The government has emphasized that this provision is meant to ensure that the law only criminalizes material that portrays sex that would be illegal in real life.

Limiting the ban on content depicting adults portraying children. The House of Commons amendments would adjust this ban so that only “sound or information associated with the image” can indicate that a character is under 16. This replaces broader criteria, under which elements such as costume and setting could indicate whether an adult performer is portraying a minor. The updated, more specific requirement appears to mean that only audible dialogue and/or titles and descriptions associated with content would constitute such evidence. A government memorandumposted Tuesday notes, by way of example, that the law is “not intended to criminalise a pornographic image of someone who is clearly an adult where the only marker of childhood is the fact that he or she is in school uniform.”

Replacing a plan to allow anyone appearing in adult content to withdraw their consent at any time. The House of Lords amendments would require sites to verify the age and consent of all performers, and to remove content within 24 hours if a performer withdraws their consent — regardless of whether they previously consented to publication of the content or signed a contract. Instead of that law, the House of Commons version would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of providers’ age and consent verification procedures, and present the results to Parliament within a year. The Secretary of State would also be given new powers to intervene on this issue and regulate sites’ age and consent verification duties without further authorization by Parliament.

The House of Commons’ list of proposed amendments does not include any objections or changes to a House of Lords amendment that would outlaw “choking” content. The government has concurred with that plan.

The differences between the Lords and Commons versions of the Crime and Policing bill will need to be resolved during “ping pong” negotiations, as proposed changes go back and forth between the two bodies.