cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/4221949
Court Rules in Pornhub’s Favor in Finding Texas Age-Verification Law Violates First Amendment::A Texas law requiring age-verification measures for porn sites, challenged by Pornhub and others, violates the First Amendment, a judge ruled.
You must log in or register to comment.
Texas just loves dying on all the wrong hills, don’t they?
The government here likes to try and see exactly how small and intrusive small government can get.
Government small enough to fit in a woman’s vagina
Companies cannot be responsible for inattentive parents. No, kids shouldn’t have access to porn. Shitty parents shouldn’t have kids either but here we are.
Since I can’t read lawyer speak very well, can someone sum up why it was considered a first amendment failing?
It can understand why forcing sites to display the warning would be a violation, but the basic wording of “reasonable age verification method” doesn’t seem to be a first amendment violation to my understanding.
Note: I am not disagreeing with this outcome, I just don’t understand how it’s specifically a first amendment violation.
Also please use small words, as I am dumb.
0: both parties tacitly agree that strict scrutiny of this law applies due to merits of the law and prior precdent
1: law is too broad, in that the law does not specify strictly enough what is “adult content” and does not provide reasonable means for preventing minor access. Just cited that states could just as easily ban newspapers they disagree with under the law
2: law is too onerous to comply with. Costs too much money, basically, for sites to comply with. Essentially, requiring the company provide the age verification process is an undue burden. “Proper age verification” is not explicitly defined, and can mean whatever the state wants it to mean at any given time.
3: warning the sites are required to display does not have associated findings, scientifically. Gov agencies responsible have not shown that these outcomes are likely.
4: “sweep” of law (that is, who it is designed to protect) is unclear due to widely varying harm between different levels of minors. For instance, sites that offer sex Ed to older teens would also be impacted
5: adults seeking to view adult content are likely to be impacted, making the law too broad in its impact
6: no guarantee that age verification measures will be deleted and protect consumer privacy
7: less restrictive measures are available, and the states own research indicates parental measures to prevent minors from accessing adult content are sufficient
There’s a bit more, but it gets increasingly harder to “ELI5” because it is based on precedents and such. Essentially, the law is very poorly written and likely wouldn’t pass constitutional muster at any improved level of specificity.
I’m feel less dumb now. Thank you new friend.
To my understanding this law required much more invasive methods of age-verification than a simple “are you over 18?” prompt, which could potentially lead to people exposing sensitive personal information to malicious websites.
Take this with a grain of salt because i also haven’t read the article yet, but i remember this lawsuit from other posts a couple of months ago.
But but, how will I apply rules for thee but not for me? How will I apply freedom of speech of I cannot block the speech of those that I don’t like?
Okay, but can we all agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography?
You guys are really downvoting this? Man you guys fucking suck. What’s wrong with you people?
Define “kids”
Define “pornography”
I’m not being pedantic - this is one of the reasons the law was struck down.
Oh boy……
From my post explaining the judgment in non-legalese above
4: “sweep” of law (that is, who it is designed to protect) is unclear due to widely varying harm between different levels of minors. For instance, sites that offer Sex Ed to older teens would also be impacted
I’m just trying to make sure you guys agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography.
Some fucking retard is asking me to define ‘kids’ and ‘pornography’
Everyone immediately downvoting my comment of ‘you guys don’t think kids should be exposed to pornography, right?’
I think this is an important distinction. We need to start there and then we can move forward and find ways to protect them from it.
But it makes sense to make sure we are starting from the same place.
The dude asking about what kids and pornography means is probably a fucking creep
That “fucking retard” is also me, and as I added to the comment, that specific difference is part of the judgment.
People are downvoting you for the same reason they disapprove of the law - your comment seems disingenuous.
Ways to protect children already exist, and are more effective, as the judgment also found.
I just really hate this place and the people who post here
This is a solvable problem. You can just not log in.
Not sure why you hate people for explaining a judgment to you that you clearly did not read.
I’m sure you’ll fit right in on truth social
Some fucking retard
Really, bruh?
Really
deleted by creator
So kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography, right?
deleted by creator
“When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.”
Ezekiel 23:18-21
“So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.”
Genesis 19:35
Prostitution, horse sized dicks, breast fondling, incest and rape.
Should Americans under the age of 18 be banned from reading the bible because it is arguably pornographic?
Or is it important that we define what constitutes pornography and what constitutes a child, so that banning the bible isn’t possible?
And don’t think this is me simply being funny. The bible has been been banned in some schools and for some ages, thanks to these kinds of overly broad and poorly written laws.
Removed by mod
I’m not sure why you felt the need to say this. Have you met many people that are OK with kids watching porn?
It Lemmy, it’s a bunch of underaged communists here and weird creepy tech bros.
The two comments made here were very unclear about what made them happy about this. I’m just making sure you guys celebrating this aren’t a bunch of fucking weirdos.
So we agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography?
Good.
Now what do we do about it?
Per the judgment, parental monitoring software is both superior in efficacy, per the state’s own findings, and sufficient under the intent of the law to prevent minors from accessing pornography, while not inviting first amendment challenges
In other words, as the state likes to claim about schools, parents are the ones responsible for preventing access to content the parents fund questionable.
My full explainer of the judgment is above if you’d like to read it.
I’m not confused about the judgment
How about the common sense thing? It’s the parents’ job to monitor their kid’s internet activities. If you give your kid unfettered access to the internet on their phone of computer than you should be held liable for the results. If your kid lets their friends access porn on those insecure devices that too is your fault. If their school fails to lock down their network to block inappropriate material then that school should be held liable.
The current Texas law puts every adult user’s privacy at risk rather than holding the parents responsible for their own failures. In addition, it’s written so broadly that it would quickly be used against any site the Texas Republicans choose to target in their culture wars such as sex-ed and LGBTQ+ education sites.
I think you guys are misunderstanding my stance on this. I don’t like this solution either.
But I do want to make sure people are celebrating this for a reason that makes sense, and not because they don’t care if kids have access to pornography.
Because I do not believe that anyone is able to monitor someone else’s internet access exclusively at all times. Kids go to friends houses, or get friends devices all the time.
Pornography is accessible in places that are not exclusively pornhub.
You would have to block lemmy from your router if you had kids, for example.
Not many parents are even tech savvy enough to know that’s possible, or even what lemmy is.
This is not the right solution, but neither is slapping a label of 18+ on content.
It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that a lot of people commenting on this are just absolutely fine with children being exposed to inappropriate sexual materials online. Because lemmy’s user base skews hard to the left
You right wingers should rename yourselves the “What about” party
You left wingers should rename yourselves the ‘groomer’ party
You just proved my point, you’re constantly changing the subject. Well, good luck with that, boomer.
Sorry, didn’t you change the subject when you said that? I said almost word for word what you already said lmao
Are you okay, man? I was following YOUR lead
I think the issue here is that people don’t want to share private data such as their fucking driver’s license with a tech company that can be hacked, rather than whatever the fuck you’re pulling out your ass, but you’re too fucking retarded to understand nuance outside of it mentioning “porn,” “access,” and “children.”
It’s a big “what about” - where you rolled back around to missing the entire fucking point while also confirming that you’re a right-wing dipshit.
They pointed out that your entire argument is in bad faith, and you confirmed that your entire argument is in bad faith - just to dumb it down further since you clearly fucking need it.
Nobody’s disagreeing about that.
Good
Generally speaking that should be the goal, but I started watching porn when I was pretty young and would do so again if I had to start my life over. It’s up to parents to stop that kind of behavior, not the government.
Generally I think there should be zero regulation on age verification for things like porn and other “adult” content.
It’s the parents job to police their kids, not the state. Any government regulations regarding age verification would likely infringe on our rights.
