Which countries have specifically ordered Pornhub to be blocked and what were the legal reasons?
Executive summary
Several national governments and subnational authorities have either ordered Pornhub blocked or prompted the site to self-block for legal reasons that fall into two broad categories: criminal law concerns about child sexual abuse material and “harm to minors,” and regulatory age‑verification or morality-based content restrictions; examples include China, the Philippines, Russia, India, Turkey, Thailand, France and multiple U.S. states, each invoking different statutory grounds or court orders [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Reporting shows the legal rationales vary by jurisdiction and sometimes overlap with political or cultural agendas, rather than reflecting a single global legal standard [7] [8].
1. China — Great Firewall and blanket censorship
China’s internet controls have long blocked mainstream Western adult sites including Pornhub under the Great Firewall, a broad censorship apparatus used to restrict social media and “Western” content as well as pornography; this is an administrative, non‑specific ban enforced as part of China’s overall limits on internet content [1] [7] [2].
2. Philippines — anti‑child‑porn law cited
The Philippines is reported to have blocked Pornhub and other pornographic sites under Republic Act 9775, the Anti‑Child Pornography Law, a statute aimed at eliminating child sexual abuse material and used by authorities to justify blocking adult sites deemed to carry or enable exploitative content [1].
3. Russia — court rulings, “harm to children” and demographic arguments
Russian authorities have repeatedly ordered blocks or restrictions on Pornhub after regulators or courts found content they classed as harmful to children or otherwise illegal; Roskomnadzor blocked the site in different years for perceived underage‑looking performers and “spreading harmful information to children,” and local court language in at least one case described a ban on dissemination of pornographic material with citations to negative demographic impacts, giving a flavor of the official rationale [2] [3].
4. India, Turkey, Thailand and other morality or censorship actions
India reinstated a ban at points (notably in October 2018), and Turkey and Thailand have each blocked access with official justifications framed around protecting public morality or shielding minors from “immoral and harmful” content; reporting characterizes these as censorship decisions rooted in cultural, legal and political norms around pornography [1] [5].
5. France, UK and many U.S. states — age‑verification laws and platform responses
In Europe and parts of the United States the dynamic has been regulatory: age‑verification laws meant to prevent minors’ access have led Pornhub (and its parent Aylo) either to be blocked in some places or to self‑restrict access rather than comply with local verification mandates; France’s legal back‑and‑forth over age‑verification produced temporary blocks and reinstatements, and dozens of U.S. states enacted ID‑verification statutes or related measures that in some cases prompted the site to block access as a form of protest or noncompliance [4] [6] [9] [10] [11].
6. Patchwork enforcement, corporate maneuvering and political subtext
The pattern across sources is not a simple list of countries with identical legal reasons but a patchwork: some blocks originate in criminal statutes targeting child sexual abuse material, others in administrative censorship or morality laws, and still others from regulatory compliance debates over age checks that collide with platform business models; reporting also documents corporate countermeasures (self‑blocking) and suggests political and cultural agendas shape enforcement priorities in places like Russia, China, and Turkey [3] [1] [4].
7. Limits of available reporting
Available sources identify multiple countries and states that have blocked Pornhub and explain legal rationales in broad strokes, but the reporting does not consistently provide the precise statutory citations, final court texts, or up‑to‑date enforcement statuses for every jurisdiction; where sources diverge (for example over timing or whether a block was judicially ordered versus administratively enforced), reporting often notes temporary reinstatements or company responses rather than a definitive permanent ban [10] [4] [2].