this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
227 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

73075 readers
2397 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
227
Supreme Court (SCOTUS) upholds a Texas law that requires porn websites to verify that their visitors are 18 or older, rejecting a First Amendment challenge to the law (www.eff.org)
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Pro@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Today’s decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is a direct blow to the free speech rights of adults. The Court ruled that “no person—adult or child—has a First Amendment right to access speech that is obscene to minors without first submitting proof of age.” This ruling allows states to enact onerous age-verification rules that will block adults from accessing lawful speech, curtail their ability to be anonymous, and jeopardize their data security and privacy. These are real and immense burdens on adults, and the Court was wrong to ignore them in upholding Texas’ law.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Am I the only one who beleives that it would have been a more effective arguement to try and use the 4th amendment instead of the 1st? Violating free speech is just a weak claim, but "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches..." seems quite relevent here. But I am also not a lawyer.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I thought they just stuck down the one in Tennessee? What the fuck. Sick of these corrupt courts.

[–] Buelldozer 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I thought they just stuck down the one in Tennessee?

I don't know which "they" you referring to with the Tennessee law but a Federal Court has allowed it to go into effect.

Tennessee is apparently in the process of re-writing it to be more like the Texas law because while sometimes laws are a problem based on what they do they are often struck down because of how they do it. It appears that Tennessee's law falls into the latter category.

What the fuck.

In the "before times" we had solid age verification laws regarding minors accessing pornographic material. If you wanted to purchase a Playboy magazine you needed to show ID proving you were old enough. It's only been the last 20 years or so that porn, which we used to call pr0n in order to sidestep word filters, has been available online without limits.

Sick of these corrupt courts.

Seems like you are entirely ignorant of everything surrounding this issue so where is this "corrupt courts" stuff coming from?