Summary

The Supreme Court signaled support for state-enforced age-verification laws for pornographic websites, as argued in Texas’ case.

Conservative justices cited the surge in children’s access to online pornography and technological changes, calling for reconsideration of past 1st Amendment rulings.

Texas’ law requires websites to confirm users are 18+, a model supported by 23 Republican-led states.

Critics argue it could chill adult free speech, but justices noted filtering software is ineffective. The court may uphold the law or send it back for further review by the 5th Circuit.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Can’t wait for all Red states to instantly mirror the Taliban government.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      The dominionist movement took a lot of lessons from Iran, and seek to create a similar society but with christianity instead of islam.

  • Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    11 months ago

    Do changes in technology justify curbing the second amendment, too, or just the first? I mean, guns have certainly changed a lot since the bill of rights was written.

    • minnow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m sure it doesn’t apply to only the 1st amendment! They’ll apply it to all the other amendments too (unless they don’t want to)

  • minnow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    So what they’re saying is that times have changed and things that used to be considered rights guaranteed by the Constitution need to change with the times.

    I’m sure this logic can be applied to other rights as well, as long as those rights aren’t laid out in any amendments that come after 1 and before 3.

  • jacksilver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    11 months ago

    I like that the arguement is that there are technical limitations to age restricting graphic content, so the best course of action is limiting people’s rights.

    Seems like people’s rights should be more important.