3 ms·

I think it does make a little sense. A pornographic website makes money by displaying pornography alongside advertisements. Viewing the website, the pornography

I think it does make a little sense. A pornographic website makes money by displaying pornography alongside advertisements. Viewing the website, the pornography, means also viewing the advertisements. So it's a long stretch, but the fact that money is involved in displaying pornography would put it somewhere in the obscenity laws. If there were no advertisements, and the website offered up the porn, completely free, then it would be a different argument. It's the money involved that gives the arguments any weight.

jstarfish 3y ago
[dead]
hn_acker 3y ago
The presence of advertisements on a site does not make the site content. Whether a site primarily hosting sexual content uses advertisements also changes nothing about whether it's constitutional for the government to mandate that a site publish particular "health warnings" about the non-ad sexual content on the site. Non-obscene porn (okay for adults, not okay for children) is protected by the First Amendment, while obscenity (determined by the Miller test [1]) is not protected (not okay for adults, not okay for children) by the First Amendment. The Fifth Amendment's decision that some sexual material can obscene only when viewed/read by children and non-obscene when viewed by adults relates to the mandated age verification part of the Texas law, and has little if any relation to the mandated "health warnings" (which are for adults, since children aren't allowed to be on the site). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test