General Discussion

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(117,783 posts) Wed Jan 15, 2025, 08:40 PM Jan 15

Supreme Court seems open to age checks for online porn, though some free-speech questions remain

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed open to a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography, though the justices could still send it back to a lower court for more consideration of how the age verification measure affects adults’ free-speech rights.

Texas is among more than a dozen states with such laws aimed at blocking young children and teenagers from viewing pornography. The states argue the laws are necessary as online porn, including hardcore obscene material, has become almost instantaneous to access on smartphones online.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a member of the court’s conservative majority, raised similar concerns. “Technological access to pornography has exploded, right?” he said.

The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, says the Texas law wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online, making it vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The adult-content website Pornhub has stopped operating in several states, citing the technical and privacy hurdles in complying with the laws.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-pornography-texas-minors-8aa396102ec0cdf5c86e90c1e573d562

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court seems open to age checks for online porn, though some free-speech questions remain (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jan 15 OP

This has exactly zero to do with protecting children and 100% to do with sticking a knife into Internet privacy. Girard442 Jan 15 #1

Im okay with all of it. ColinC Jan 16 #3

So, you're OK with a logon procedure that reports to the Trumpstapo every time you connect to DU? Girard442 Jan 16 #6

Rules about obscenity and punishkng free speech are different than requiring us to know who said the speech ColinC Jan 16 #8

Age limitations are not an "infringement on free speech." valleyrogue Jan 15 #2

Of course there should be an understanding that these rules can and should extend to all social media. ColinC Jan 16 #4

Yeah until the definition of porn ibegurpard Jan 16 #5

To be fair, there is also FEMDOM, where the woman does the abusing. NutmegYankee Jan 16 #7

Girard442

(6,483 posts)

1. This has exactly zero to do with protecting children and 100% to do with sticking a knife into Internet privacy.

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Jan 15, 2025, 08:52 PM

Jan 15

Next up: "We have to make all internet users identifiable to defeat terrorism."

ColinC

(11,098 posts)

3. Im okay with all of it.

Reply to Girard442 (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 16, 2025, 12:34 AM

Jan 16

There is no inherent right to privacy when it comes to the internet. It's just a thing that's been taken for granted since it's inception. But surely the anonymity that's been afforded hasn't exactly been a net positive for society.

Girard442

(6,483 posts)

6. So, you're OK with a logon procedure that reports to the Trumpstapo every time you connect to DU?

Reply to ColinC (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:06 AM

Jan 16

Because that's where this is headed.

No obscenity on DU? Well, what would Phyllis Schlafly have said?

ColinC

(11,098 posts)

8. Rules about obscenity and punishkng free speech are different than requiring us to know who said the speech

Reply to Girard442 (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 16, 2025, 08:06 AM

Jan 16

Free speech is not the right to anonymity. Truth is, children should not be on social media. Period. Or, obviously, porn sites for that matter. If we can prevent those things, that's great.

valleyrogue

(1,360 posts)

2. Age limitations are not an "infringement on free speech."

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Jan 15, 2025, 08:52 PM

Jan 15

I can't believe anybody making excuses for minors to access truly vile content which exploits women and girls. Urinating and defecating on women, beating and strangling women, calling them all kinds of vile names, alleged incest porn, you name it. No wonder women are turning away from men en masse. For many women, it isn't worth risking their lives to date or partner with men who consume porn and want to reenact what they see.

The porn lobby is powerful and has conned people over the decades, including dimwitted, misogynistic judges, that the human rights violations of women and girls is simply harmless "fun." It isn't. Men don't have a right to use women, whether directly or by proxy in the case of porn. Women and girls are not things to buy and sell.

Again, this is not a hill the political left should die on. The excuses for it continuing to exist ring hollow. Let the porn industry die on the vine. Good riddance.

ColinC

(11,098 posts)

4. Of course there should be an understanding that these rules can and should extend to all social media.

Reply to valleyrogue (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 16, 2025, 12:35 AM

Jan 16

ibegurpard

(16,894 posts)

5. Yeah until the definition of porn

Reply to valleyrogue (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 16, 2025, 04:39 AM

Jan 16

Gets ridiculously broad. Like anything at all to do with LGBTQ issues... and if you think that's hyperbole you've not been paying attention.

NutmegYankee

(16,366 posts)

7. To be fair, there is also FEMDOM, where the woman does the abusing.

Reply to valleyrogue (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:13 AM

Jan 16

Porn is all over the place. The question here is should people need to report to what might be a hostile Christian nationalist state every time they want to view something that fascists state feels is too naughty.

Reply to this discussion