3 ms·

Not necessarily. Laws touching either 1st or 2nd amendment rights would both receive strict scrutiny[1], but that doesn't mean the outcome would be the same. To

Not necessarily. Laws touching either 1st or 2nd amendment rights would both receive strict scrutiny[1], but that doesn't mean the outcome would be the same. To pass strict scrutiny, a law must be justified by a compelling governmental interest like national security or preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Keeping children from buying guns serves the obvious purpose of stopping children from accidentally killing people. It's much less clear how a child accessing a video could kill someone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

_-david-_ 4y ago
It is not strictly about saving lives and can include public health. When you read the page linked from the one you provided "compelling or overriding state interest"[1] it says it can include "the protection of public health and safety". Porn is addictive and there is a correlation between porn and depression (the causation hasn't been proven yet). Both of those are public health issues. It needs to be narrowly tailored, which this bill appears to be. If they mandated showing an ID before going on any site rather than strictly porn, then you might have a case. It also needs to be the least restrictive way to effectively accomplish this. I can't think of a less restrictive way to ensure people under 18 cannot view porn than requiring an ID. You can't argue for a button saying you are over 18 since that is not effective. Regardless, the original intent of the First Amendment was not to protect porn. It is clear that obscenity laws blocking porn were legal. I also reject the idea of incorporated rights and do not believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the States. Since this is a state law the First Amendment doesn't apply. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest

_-david-_ 4y ago

It is not strictly about saving lives and can include public health. When you read the page linked from the one you provided "compelling or overriding state interest"[1] it says it can include "the protection of public health and safety". Porn is addictive and there is a correlation between porn and depression (the causation hasn't been proven yet). Both of those are public health issues. It needs to be narrowly tailored, which this bill appears to be. If they mandated showing an ID before going on any site rather than strictly porn, then you might have a case. It also needs to be the least restrictive way to effectively accomplish this. I can't think of a less restrictive way to ensure people under 18 cannot view porn than requiring an ID. You can't argue for a button saying you are over 18 since that is not effective. Regardless, the original intent of the First Amendment was not to protect porn. It is clear that obscenity laws blocking porn were legal. I also reject the idea of incorporated rights and do not believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the States. Since this is a state law the First Amendment doesn't apply. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest