(https://archive.is/w9TcX https://archive.is/w9TcX) (IANAL) Note that some of these laws are only ostensibly about porn. For example, the Tennessee law blocks

(https://archive.is/w9TcX https://archive.is/w9TcX) (IANAL) Note that some of these laws are only ostensibly about porn. For example, the Tennessee law blocks, in addition to what one might reasonably describe as porn, additionally blocks any material that: > pander[s] to the prurient interest (—[1], §1 (b)(5)(A)(i)) While a reasonable reader might find a normal level of intent under that phrasing, Tennessee has in the past has similar laws, using similar phraseology. For example, an east TN DA attempted to enforce similar language in the TN AEA[2], threatening enforcement of that act against a pride parade despite, a.) the parade stating they would comply with all applicable laws and b.) the law the DA was threatening to enforce had already been struck down as unconstitutional. (The DA admitted knowledge of this, as well, but claimed³ that the ruling on the unconsitutionality of the law didn't apply to him. The DA was later sued, and directly enjoined from interfering with the parade.) (back to the "think of the children" act) > When taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors; (—[1], §1 (b)(5)(B), and it is less than clear to me whether (b)(5)(A) is "and" or "or", but "or" seems the more logical conclusion, and in particular, in the ambiguity, TN is a state that I would expect to argue "or".) The TN legislature's arguments while passing the AEA showed the legislatures true (discriminatory) intent. I would not be shocked to find similar here, given the similarity in the language. That is, the (purposefully) vague nature of the law as written is that the bible "has" "serious […] value for minors" but anything LGBTQ would "not" "have" such value, and would surely "pander" to the "prurient interest". > At a minimum, anonymized age-verification data must include architectural diagrams illustrating the technological assets and logical processes by which the reasonable age-verification method is accomplished and data demonstrating a volume of reasonable age-verification method executions consistent with the overall volume of visits to the website; [1]: https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/113/pub/pc1021.pdf https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/113/pub/pc1021.pdf [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Adult_Entertainment_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Adult_Entertainment_... ³The DA has some utterly braindead legal theory that the court's ruling that the law was unconstitutional doesn't apply to him — or most anyone — because the ruling's injunctive relief applied only to certain people. I'd quote it, but their argument is in a PDF that's a scan of a Word doc w/o OCRing[4] and I don't feel like re-typing it. The injunctive relief did, yes, but that was section II of the ruling, and section I, which struck the law down, is separate, and not restricted … "The Court therefore HOLDS and DECLARES that the Adult Entertainment Act is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction on speech." … which is not restricted to just the parties, which would be utterly illogical.) [4]: https://interactive.wbir.com/pdfs/AEA-Notice.pdf https://interactive.wbir.com/pdfs/AEA-Notice.pdf