4 ms·
I’m not aware of any cases holding that distribution of pornography to minors is protected speech, but I’d be happy to be educated if you have one.
by NotYourLawyer 4y ago
I’m not aware of any cases holding that distribution of pornography to minors is protected speech, but I’d be happy to be educated if you have one.
- jcranmer 4y agoObscene material is not inherently protected speech, but as it's a content-based restriction, the government is still bound by strict scrutiny to narrowly tailor its laws to achieve its legitimate interest in limiting the distribution of pornography. Furthermore, the definition of obscenity (the Miller test) is actually rather narrow, and there are likely to be several sexual fetishes that don't actually qualify as obscene, and therefore protected speech.
- themitigating 4y agoWhy?
- NotYourLawyer 4y agoWhy what? Try posting a comment with more than a word or two if you want a meaningful discussion.
- themitigating 4y agoWhy is it not interently protected speech? If you are going to make exceptions to the first admendment for safety can you prove the danger explicitly? Why not the 2nd admendment?
- NotYourLawyer 4y agoSo is that a “no, I’m not aware of any cases holding that either”?
- themitigating 4y agoWhat? I'm not arguing legal cases I'm arguing the gp's first point.
- brookst 4y agoThere are several precedents that say restrictions based on content must be evaluated using strict scrutiny, which means the restrictions must be as narrow as possible to achieve the government's interests. See for instance Ashcroft v. ACLU: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/377/ashcroft-v-american-civil-liberties-union https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/377/ashcroft-v-...
- NotYourLawyer 4y agoObjection, non-responsive.