4 ms·
I guess you didn't read the article or understand the SINGLE MAIN POINT: this case isn't about PORN. IT'S EXPLICITLY NOT ABOUT PORN. You couldn't have made a mo
by superkuh 10mo ago
I guess you didn't read the article or understand the SINGLE MAIN POINT: this case isn't about PORN. IT'S EXPLICITLY NOT ABOUT PORN. You couldn't have made a more off-topic, entirely wrong comment if you had tried. Here is the first two paragraphs since you were unable to load it yourself.
>Over the summer, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upended decades of traditional First Amendment standards to say that Texas could put in place an age verification law if that law was intended to keep kids away from porn. As we argued at the time, the ruling had all sorts of problems, but even leaving those aside, it was still pretty clearly limited solely to situations involving age gating adult content. Not news sites. Not fitness apps. Not therapy platforms. Porn.
>Texas, predictably, heard “you can age gate porn” and decided that meant “you can age gate everything.” Because why respect constitutional distinctions when you can just pretend they don’t exist?
If you want to keep thinking about porn then do it somewhere else. We're not discussing your obsession. This federal case, this article, this comment thread are about Texas trying to apply the age-gating for porn to non-porn things.
- jmclnx 10mo agoDo not forget the "Christian Taliban's" war on LGBT Culture.
- mlrtime 10mo agoTexas overreaching doesn't invalidate the underlying principle. The Supreme Court was right to allow age verification for porn, and Texas writing an overly broad law that tries to age-gate news sites and fitness apps just means Texas wrote a bad law. The solution is striking down the overreach and writing narrower statutes that target actual age-restricted content, not abandoning age verification entirely. Courts exist to enforce those distinctions.
- superkuh 10mo agoYour framing that this is about abandoning age gating entirely is just as wrong as the previous poster saying this was about porn. This is about the unconsitutional application of age-gating to non-harmful things the state of Texas doesn't like on a whim. Seriously, did no one read the article?