5 ms·

I agree, but I sadly believe these requirements will spread to other countries, including the US. The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Texas' ID law is some

I agree, but I sadly believe these requirements will spread to other countries, including the US. The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Texas' ID law is somehow constitutional.

bigstrat2003 1y ago
"Constitutional" doesn't mean it's a good law, just that it is not prohibited for the state to make such a law. I personally don't like the law but I have a hard time seeing how it would be unconstitutional.
- hnlmorg 1y ago
  I felt the GP was making that same point.
- sterlind 1y ago
  it should be unconstitutional because it's clearly a content-based restriction of speech, meaning that regulating it entails strict scrutiny. strict scrutiny requires Texas to use the least burdensome means possible to satisfy the state's legitimate interest in preventing minors from accessing obscene content - probably a home network filter appliance parents can opt into. this is what they held in Paxton v. NetChoice (iirc.) instead, the Court contorted themselves into holding that adults have accessing content obscene to minors without furnishing their ID isn't protected speech. porn still is protected speech, but proving your age isn't protected speech. as a result, the law is content-neutral, not content-based.. somehow. it was a low point for the Court - clear activist justices legislating morality from the bench.
- tripplyons 1y ago
  Previously, these kinds of laws violated the 1st Amendment, but the changes in the composition of Supreme Court justices have led to different rulings.
exasperaited 1y ago
What do you mean "spread to"? The USA passed a dozen such bills into state law before this actually came into effect. That states compete to ignore each other's laws doesn't change a thing.
- tripplyons 1y ago
  For the US, I'm referring to federal laws or more laws in more states. As for other countries, the EU just delayed the vote for "Chat Control" as recently as yesterday!

I agree, but I sadly believe these requirements will spread to other countries, including the US. The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Texas' ID law is somehow constitutional.

bigstrat2003 1y ago

"Constitutional" doesn't mean it's a good law, just that it is not prohibited for the state to make such a law. I personally don't like the law but I have a hard time seeing how it would be unconstitutional.

hnlmorg 1y ago
I felt the GP was making that same point.
sterlind 1y ago
it should be unconstitutional because it's clearly a content-based restriction of speech, meaning that regulating it entails strict scrutiny. strict scrutiny requires Texas to use the least burdensome means possible to satisfy the state's legitimate interest in preventing minors from accessing obscene content - probably a home network filter appliance parents can opt into. this is what they held in Paxton v. NetChoice (iirc.) instead, the Court contorted themselves into holding that adults have accessing content obscene to minors without furnishing their ID isn't protected speech. porn still is protected speech, but proving your age isn't protected speech. as a result, the law is content-neutral, not content-based.. somehow. it was a low point for the Court - clear activist justices legislating morality from the bench.
tripplyons 1y ago
Previously, these kinds of laws violated the 1st Amendment, but the changes in the composition of Supreme Court justices have led to different rulings.

exasperaited 1y ago

What do you mean "spread to"? The USA passed a dozen such bills into state law before this actually came into effect. That states compete to ignore each other's laws doesn't change a thing.

tripplyons 1y ago
For the US, I'm referring to federal laws or more laws in more states. As for other countries, the EU just delayed the vote for "Chat Control" as recently as yesterday!