You would think keeping minors off pornography websites would be one of the easiest bipartisan votes imaginable.
Apparently not in Minnesota.
During a recent Minnesota House Commerce Committee hearing on HF 1434, Democrat state Rep. Leigh Finke launched into a defense that left many parents stunned. The bill is designed to require age verification for explicit websites — the same type of law the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld in Texas.
Instead of backing what supporters describe as a basic child-protection measure, Finke warned that the bill’s language could block “potentially educational” online content for queer youth.
Let that sink in.
https://twitter.com/honeyybomb/status/2024833274917372099
Finke repeatedly raised concerns about how enforcement might affect young people who, in Finke’s view, receive little or no queer-inclusive sex education. Finke argued that some attorneys general are “almost jubilant” about using age-verification laws to stop young “queer” people from accessing material that “could be educational if they are queer.”
Trans-identified male and Minnesota State Rep. Leigh Finke says that pornography can be "educational" for children who are "queer."
This is the same guy who wrote a book for kids advising them to go to sex shops and have adults help them try on fetish gear – binders and gaffs. https://t.co/m3Q34fFUk0 pic.twitter.com/dMSg2KI9IB
— Genevieve Gluck (@WomenReadWomen) February 20, 2026
Finke also warned that vague definitions of “prurient interest” could be stretched so far that even information about the “very existence of transgender kids” could be treated as sexual content.
Supporters of the bill see that argument as wildly off-base.
Groups like Moms for Liberty and the Stanley M. Herzog Foundation quickly circulated the clip, accusing Finke of opposing “common-sense” age verification. They said Finke believes it is “crucial for so-called queer kids to have access to pornography,” and insisted that the law’s purpose is simple: “to protect children” from explicit material.
The backlash was immediate and brutal.
On X and Reddit, users blasted the remarks as “disgusting,” accused Finke of “grooming” children, labeled Finke a “child predator,” and called the argument “the worst possible defense” of civil-liberties concerns. Some urged that the clip be used in future campaigns. Others demanded resignation.
— SonofLiberty357 (@SonofLiberty357) February 20, 2026
Finke, for Finke’s part, said the comments were taken out of context. Finke complained that opponents had quickly clipped and “twist[ed]” the remarks in order to do harm because Finke is “transgender.” Finke vowed to “fight for queer kids” despite the backlash.
Hey Minnesota! Pull head from ass! pic.twitter.com/3dPhnJ6svD
— Liberty Hollow Wealth Tales (@LHWealthTales) February 20, 2026
And here’s where the political fight really is.
Finke continues to argue that HF 1434 can and should be written in a way that keeps minors off pornography sites without becoming part of what Finke called a political “machine that is now designed specifically to hate and destroy transgender people,” or a tool for censoring age-appropriate information about queer identities.
Apparently they are
— Weebutmighty (@Tinybutfierce1) February 20, 2026
But for many parents, this isn’t complicated.
They’re not debating abstract definitions of “prurient interest.” They’re asking a much simpler question: Why is there even a carve-out conversation happening when the subject is pornography and children?
Age-verification laws are not about banning identities. They are about keeping explicit material behind an adult firewall.
The political risk here for Democrats is obvious. When the headline reads “bill protecting kids from porn,” voters tend to stop listening to the fine print.
And when an elected official appears to argue that blocking access might interfere with content that “could be educational if they are queer,” opponents don’t have to do much editing.
The clip speaks for itself.
https://twitter.com/AllEyezOnDoe/status/2024855332246499756