3 ms·

> There is a reason TV companies get fined when someone says a "bad" word. This is actually really complicated and possibly (likely?) unconstitutional. They b

by Brybry 3y ago

> There is a reason TV companies get fined when someone says a "bad" word. This is actually really complicated and possibly (likely?) unconstitutional. They basically can do limited censorship because of FCC v. Pacifica [1] But that failed when applied to the internet. [2] And it even fails sometimes when applied to TV. [3] A different court in the future may very well overturn FCC v. Pacifica without anyone passing a new Federal law. And States already are almost certainly prevented from outright censoring porn because: a) legal porn has already been ruled *not* to be federally obscene via Miller test. [4] They have to use the 'actionable indecency' bit from Pacifica to censor (ie. these ID laws) otherwise first amendment protected material. [6] b) the first amendment is incorporated and thus applies to the States [5] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FCC_v._Pacifica_F... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberti... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Fox_Television_Stations,_Inc._(2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Fox_Television_Stations... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actionable_indecency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actionable_indecency

_8j50 3y ago
You did not disagree with anything I said. You can sell porn in any state but you can't display porn on a public display outside your store. Similar to how in most states you can't expose yourself to the public. Free speech can be restricted when harm can be caused. If these recent laws are unconstitutional then are you saying no one wants to challenge them? Not even the aclu?
- Brybry 3y ago
  The Louisiana law is being challenged [1] I don't get why we can't instead have regulation requiring porn websites to implement adult content rating meta tags, which most porn sites already do (look at the site source sometime). [2][3] Then let parents use content blockers and/or built-in parental controls. If we need even more regulation after that then require platforms to provide parental controls to block tagged content (which I assume they generally already do anyway?) It's not like the sites that don't implement rating meta tags are going to follow these more strict ID verification laws. In my opinion, I feel like these laws are not really about protecting children (which most everyone supports), as I don't see that they will meaningfully do so. That makes me think they're instead about conservative political points at the expense of annoying adults. [1] https://www.nola.com/gambit/news/the_latest/groups-file-free-speech-lawsuit-against-louisiana-s-anti-porn-law/article_1a4e3530-0fba-11ee-8efd-c36513b1dd12.html https://www.nola.com/gambit/news/the_latest/groups-file-free... [2] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/safesearch https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/... [3] https://davidwalsh.name/rta-label https://davidwalsh.name/rta-label

by Brybry 3y ago

_8j50 3y ago

You did not disagree with anything I said. You can sell porn in any state but you can't display porn on a public display outside your store. Similar to how in most states you can't expose yourself to the public. Free speech can be restricted when harm can be caused. If these recent laws are unconstitutional then are you saying no one wants to challenge them? Not even the aclu?

Brybry 3y ago
The Louisiana law is being challenged [1] I don't get why we can't instead have regulation requiring porn websites to implement adult content rating meta tags, which most porn sites already do (look at the site source sometime). [2][3] Then let parents use content blockers and/or built-in parental controls. If we need even more regulation after that then require platforms to provide parental controls to block tagged content (which I assume they generally already do anyway?) It's not like the sites that don't implement rating meta tags are going to follow these more strict ID verification laws. In my opinion, I feel like these laws are not really about protecting children (which most everyone supports), as I don't see that they will meaningfully do so. That makes me think they're instead about conservative political points at the expense of annoying adults. [1] https://www.nola.com/gambit/news/the_latest/groups-file-free-speech-lawsuit-against-louisiana-s-anti-porn-law/article_1a4e3530-0fba-11ee-8efd-c36513b1dd12.html https://www.nola.com/gambit/news/the_latest/groups-file-free... [2] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/safesearch https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/... [3] https://davidwalsh.name/rta-label https://davidwalsh.name/rta-label