Summary
The Supreme Court’s hearing of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton signals potential limits on First Amendment protections for online pornography.
The case involves a Texas law mandating age verification for websites with “sexual material harmful to minors,” challenging the 2004 Ashcroft v. ACLU precedent, which struck down similar laws under strict scrutiny.
Justices, citing the inadequacy of modern filtering tools, seemed inclined to weaken free speech protections, exploring standards like intermediate scrutiny.
The ruling could reshape online speech regulations, leaving adults’ access to sexual content uncertain while tightening restrictions for minors.
it’s so shocking that the right-wing’s commitment to free speech was entirely performative and predicated on no principle whatsoever
You gotta be a really profoundly uncomfortable, nervous human being to think of sex as bad.
What an absolute sign of weakness.
You don’t have to think sex is bad to think porn is bad for children and teens.
This Texas law and others like it are bullshit, but making strawman arguments about them isn’t helping anything.
Ain’t the point of a right that it’s protected from the government?
Notice how we’re already asking past the sale with the tacit labeling of “sexual material harmful to minors,” with the presupposed declaration that sexual material is automatically harmful to minors.
The all-consuming mission to look at boobies is essentially universal for all pubescent boys from about 12 all the way to the age of majority. This is well known, and none of us came off any the worse despite widespread availability of older brothers’ back issues of Hustler, Usenet, dial-up BBS systems, and ultimately the world wide web.
If teens weren’t naturally interested in sex where wouldn’t been all them teenage pregnancies. Q.E.D.
The all-consuming mission to look at boobies is essentially universal for all pubescent boys from about 12 all the way to the age of majority.
Not true. Some boys also want to look at dicks.
Kids are gonna start finding porn the old-fashioned way: randomly coming across discarded magazines at the park. That was my first experience.
Or torrents… It would be funny if this just ended up teaching new generations how to torrent.
“Woods” or “Field” porn was surprising common. I was honestly surprised to hear that was so many of my friends (and my) introduction to porn.
So we can ban content that is claimed to be harmful to minors but not weapons that actually kill children…
Jfc when you put it that way
The vague threat of “think of the children maybe being exposed to sexual things” challenging our first amendment right but it becomes some huge debate if a woman is being harassed/stalked/threatened online.
**they are justififying destroying our rights for their feelings **
It’s just the first amendment.
I mean we’ve got plenty of others.
Get ready for the slippery slope. Anything conservatives don’t want you to see or read will be placed behind an “identify yourself” firewall.
What’s taught in schools: the parents should have a say! Don’t let the government decide what to teach our kids!
Books in libraries and content on the internet: the government must step in and make certain content illegal!
Of course, fascists don’t care if they’re hypocritical. They say whatever gives them the most power in any situation, so calling out hypocrisy won’t stop them. It’s still good to do, though.
And they’ll cry freedom the entire time
I’m calling it right now. They use this as first amendment cover for TikTok.
Soon they’ll make sexual partners register with the state or straight up make premarital sex illegal. And anyone found breaking the law (i.e. women getting pregnant) will go to jail.
… will go to jail and be forced to carry the pregnancy to term, be billed for delivery services, and raise the kid on her own. Nothing screams “stable childhood” like the government forcing your kid on you as punishment for getting pregnant.
Dark web mobile client?
