Supreme Court leans in favor of state-enforced age limits on porn websites

Los Angeles Times ^ | Jan. 15, 2025 Updated 12:48 PM PT | David G. Savage

[E. Pluribus Unum]

WASHINGTON  —  Thanks to the internet and smartphones, children today have instant access to vast amounts of online pornography, much of it graphic, violent and degrading, Texas state attorneys told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

They urged justices to restore the rules of an earlier era, when X-rated theaters and bookstores had an adults-only policy.

Last year, Texas enacted an age-verification law that requires pornographic websites to confirm their users are 18 or older.

Lawyers for 23 other Republican-led states joined in support of Texas, saying they have or plan to adopt similar measures.

The court’s conservative justices signaled they are prepared to uphold these new laws.

They noted that age-verification rules are now common for online gambling and for buying alcohol or tobacco online.

But more importantly, they pointed to the dramatic change in technology and the easy availability of hardcore pornography.

We are “in an entirely different era,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “The technological access to pornography has exploded.”

He said that warrants reconsidering rulings from decades past that invoked the 1st Amendment to strike down anti-pornography measures.

In one such ruling, the court in 2004 said parents and librarians could use filtering software to protect children from pornography.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said parents have long known that “filtering” software is not effective in protecting children. “Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones and computers,” she said. “I can say from personal experience ... content filtering isn’t working.”

In the past, she said the court had no problem upholding laws that prevent bookstores from selling sexually explicit books or magazine to children or teens.

She questioned why online porn should be treated differently.

[Right Brigade]

Either way they decide the pornographers will make more money.
Make it harder to get,the more a fool will pay.
If I owned a VPN buisness I would be advertising to porno addicts today.

[reasonisfaith]

Wait a minute. Earlier in this thread you were telling me we should promote pornography based on Constitutional principles.

Now you’re telling me we should use pornography because if we don’t the big mean liberals will come get us?

[reasonisfaith]

No I wouldn’t.

[reasonisfaith]

Wait a minute. Earlier in this thread you were telling me we should promote pornography based on Constitutional principles.

Now you’re telling me we should use pornography because if we don’t the big mean liberals will come get us?

[Jonty30]

I never said promote. Don’t put words in my mouth.
I also never said that we should use pornography.

I said that the Founding Fathers did have access to pornography, so they knew what it was and they never banned it under the kind of country they wanted. They didn’t want the government to determine morality, because of the danger of losing the Republic in the process.

I also said that, if pornography is banned that the Bible would be next because it would likely meet the legal criteria that you want to ban pornography.

[Jonty30]

Yes you would. If they both get banned, you’ll need the same secrecy to read your Bible that you would need to read pornography. If you think that wouldn’t be enforced, go look at Britain.

[reasonisfaith]

You’re right, you didn’t say promote or use pornography. I was merely giving you a taste of what it’s like. (Like I said, I believe in hitting back.)

Meanwhile, let’s review the substance of your arguments. It is limited to the following concepts:

1. the Bible is the same thing as pornography

2. the role of pornography in 1776 was the same as it is today

3. leftists make flawed arguments, so we should be afraid of them and acquiesce to their anti-American agenda

[reasonisfaith]

Britain doesn’t have our Constitution, neither does any other country.

But when we get MAGA rolling again, some of them might take a notion to it.

[Jonty30]

Yes and it’s Constitutional to have equality under the law. To the liberal, pornography and the Bible are the same for their purposes and that’s what they would argue.

[reasonisfaith]

Why do you keep insisting that we need to be afraid of, or even take notice of flawed liberal arguments?

[Jonty30]

I’m just explaining how the law works. I’m not hitting back to anybody.

For the purpose of law, the Bible is the same as pornography in terms of whether it has content that would run foul of the laws that you want to use or create to ban pornography.

The Founding Fathers knew of pornography and saw no reason for the government to be involved, otherwise they would have wrote a clause dealing with the issue. They would have classified the use as a moral failing of the person.

It doesn’t matter to me if their arguements are flawed. All that matters to me is whether or not they could succeed and there is a good chance they would succeed.

[reasonisfaith]

Equality under the law doesn’t translate into pornography equals the Bible.

This kind of thinking demonstrates the low IQ in liberalism.

[Jonty30]

Because liberals are evil people, who are quite capable of deeply evil acts.

[reasonisfaith]

Is that why the founders specified yelling fire in a crowded theater?

[Jonty30]

That kind of thinking is how America got to be where it is today. The liberals has been highly successful.

[Jonty30]

That was a supreme Court ruling, not the Founding Fathers.

If the FOunding Fathers wanted it banned, they would have wrote a clause that excepted it from the right to free expression.

[reasonisfaith]

But you don’t respond to stupidity by acquiescing to it.

Instead, you fight against it and eventually teach them a better way to think, for those with the capacity.

[reasonisfaith]

No duh.

You missed my sarcasm.

[reasonisfaith]

But the Bible doesn’t equal pornography.

[Jonty30]

When the world didn’t acquiesce to liberal demands in the 20th century, they murdered 250 million people and started wars to eliminate stubborn people.

It seems that trying to resist doesn’t work.