Law that requires porn sites to verify user ages faces First Amendment challenge.
See full article...
See full article...
I mean, this is a terrible court, but they literally just ruled against a Texas social media law on First Amendment grounds yesterday. The article is still on the front page, for God's sake.Knowing the SC, they'll probably rule that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to americans.
No, as we all know the Bill of Rights stated that Corporations were appointed by the white Christian god of the United State to be the only people for whom those Rights apply to. So I expect a 6:3 decision by our current Supreme Court "originalists" to redefine citizenship as only applying to the corporations. /s (but unfortunately Republicans don't understand sarcasm so I'm presuming that will actually be the ruling).Knowing the SC, they'll probably rule that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to americans.
Get with the data exfiltration already then.Data breaches will make this kind of thing unpopular. Just saying.
I'm expecting an 8-1 or 7-2 here. The conservatives, as you say, are mostly strong on corporations' First Amendment rights, while the liberals will be persuaded by the privacy concerns inherent in age verification.No, as we all know the Bill of Rights stated that Corporations were appointed by the white Christian god of the United State to be the only people for whom those Rights apply to. So I expect a 6:3 decision by our current Supreme Court "originalists" to redefine citizenship as only applying to the corporations. /s (but unfortunately Republicans don't understand sarcasm so I'm presuming that will actually be the ruling).
They vacated the 11th circuit ruling, which ruled the Florida law similar to the Texas social media law was unconstitutional, along with the 5th circuit ruling that upheld the Texas law. So if they ruled against the Texas law, then they ruled for the same type of law in Florida.I mean, this is a terrible court, but they literally just ruled against a Texas social media law on First Amendment grounds yesterday. The article is still on the front page, for God's sake.
![]()
Supreme Court vacates rulings on Texas and Florida social media laws
Supreme Court remands two cases, saying lower courts didn't do full analysis.arstechnica.com
No.. they punted it.I mean, this is a terrible court, but they literally just ruled against a Texas social media law on First Amendment grounds yesterday. The article is still on the front page, for God's sake.
![]()
Supreme Court vacates rulings on Texas and Florida social media laws
Supreme Court remands two cases, saying lower courts didn't do full analysis.arstechnica.com
Yean but this one has boobies.I mean, this is a terrible court, but they literally just ruled against a Texas social media law
Would be kind of an obvious suspect, don't you think? I just put ideas out there.Get with the data exfiltration already then.
Yes, but moderating content on a social media site was a slam-dunk case of not being able to compel speech. This pornography case crosses into speech that many conservatives feel is valueless and morally repugnant in its entirety, thus not deserving of protection. I wouldn't be surprised if obscenity laws made a comeback under this SCOTUS.I mean, this is a terrible court, but they literally just ruled against a Texas social media law on First Amendment grounds yesterday. The article is still on the front page, for God's sake.
![]()
Supreme Court vacates rulings on Texas and Florida social media laws
Supreme Court remands two cases, saying lower courts didn't do full analysis.arstechnica.com
Change your name to Keyser Söze then do it.Yean but this one has boobies.
Would be kind of an obvious suspect, don't you think? I just put ideas out there.
That's just mean-spirited.Meh,... Texans aren't missing anything. Pornhub doesn't have a goat-fucking category.
Good intention doesn't justify bad policies or unconstitutional laws."the age-verification requirement is rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in preventing minors' access to pornography. Therefore, the age-verification requirement does not violate the First Amendment."
If your point was something other than "this Supreme Court is bad, therefore their ruling in this specific instance will be bad," then yes, I missed it.Whooosh! I think you missed my (extremely bitter, upset at our unfairly packed SC taking away my children's' rights) point, though your prediction is (hopefully) correct at least with the way the court has been leaning this year.
I mean, the free speech argument absolutely isn't a strawman, or right-wing, but the privacy and security risks inherent in age verification are also very definitely at play in this case.It's sad that the main political argument against these age verification laws is the right-wing strawman of "freedom of speech", rather than the very real security disasters that these laws will inevitably create.
Mmm, yeah... Considering that the parts of the court that previously "unswervingly" applied "originalism" and/or "textualism" to justify overturning decades of precedent have just ditched all that (again) that to pave the way for a Trump dictatorship, I no longer have any faith that this court will follow even their own precedent if ignoring it furthers their authoritarian goals.TFA:
The dissenting judge faulted the 5th Circuit majority for reviewing the law under the "rational-basis" standard instead of the more stringent strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court "has unswervingly applied strict scrutiny to content-based regulations that limit adults' access to protected speech," Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote at the time.
If only the founders had the foresight to put freedom of privacy in the bill of rights.I mean, the free speech argument absolutely isn't a strawman, or right-wing, but the privacy and security risks inherent in age verification are also very definitely at play in this case.
Oh yes this definitely sounds like someone we want to have the keys to a database full of names, addresses, and photographs of everyone who visits bad and wrong websites.Paxton's brief opposing certiorari said the "First Amendment does not allow even adults to access obscenity"
Good intentions? From Ken Paxton and the republicans? Fucking please.Good intention doesn't justify bad policies or unconstitutional laws.
And the 9th's been interpreted for the past 70 years or so to include some measure of a right to privacy, but the conservatives are gunning for that one.If only the founders had the foresight to put freedom of privacy in the bill of rights.
I mean they were close with the 4th.
Doesn't matter. This court is utterly incomprehensible with no respect for stare decisis, even with between their own rulings. Just look at the mess they've created interpreting their own 2022 Bruen decision and applying it to the recent Rahimi decision.I mean, this is a terrible court, but they literally just ruled against a Texas social media law on First Amendment grounds yesterday. The article is still on the front page, for God's sake.
![]()
Supreme Court vacates rulings on Texas and Florida social media laws
Supreme Court remands two cases, saying lower courts didn't do full analysis.arstechnica.com
coolHow do you interpret this as being related to privacy?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
IMO it'd be a stretch.
It's just a blanket clause saying that the bill of rights is not a comprehensive list of rights, they meant it as you have to many rights for us to list but we've listed the one's we felt needed to be listed.
They vacated the 11th circuit ruling, which ruled the Florida law similar to the Texas social media law was unconstitutional, along with the 5th circuit ruling that upheld the Texas law. So if they ruled against the Texas law, then they ruled for the same type of law in Florida.
Really, to say the ruled against the Texas law is inaccurate. They provided some additional guidance, and different Justices provided wildly different guidance, and sent it back to the lower courts. They didn't rule for or against anyone.
If your point was something other than "this Supreme Court is bad, therefore their ruling in this specific instance will be bad," then yes, I missed it.
Never wake a floating goatMeh,... Texans aren't missing anything. Pornhub doesn't have a goat-fucking category.
I haven't disputed any of that.I think it's pretty clear that at this point in the Roberts court, far too many decisions are arrived at before the case is really heard and the arguments are constructed to fit the desired outcome. Sotomayor did note in her dissent yesterday that the majority is rather selective when it does, or does not, consider history.