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.

[reasonisfaith]

You’re referring to the way pornography causes destruction of families?

[Jonty30]

It doesn’t how harmful pornography is, or you believe it to be.
It only matters if it is allowed to be expressed or not under the law. If it is not allowed, then liberals will look at the Bible for the sections that violate your desired law and expect the law to be enforced upon the Bible.

You’re as bad as the liberal is in your inability to foresee the consequences of what you want.

[Jonty30]

Pornography should not be ignored, but the freedom of expression, if it is as the Founding Fathers envisioned, allowed.

You are better off to create services within the church to free mostly men from pornography than focus on the law. I didn’t need a law to be free from pornography. I only needed to heal where I needed healing before I could separate myself from it.

The law will not heal men.

[Jonty30]

It doesn’t matter how harmful it is, just whether or not it is allowed under the Constitution. The Constitution does not exempt porn from being able to be expressed.

[Jonty30]

It is irrelevant if it damages families. Sorry, the Constitution does not say free expression, except where it damages families.

[reasonisfaith]

I see you’re running away from discussing the court’s view of yelling fire in a crowded theater.

The distribution of pornography is in the same category as yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[reasonisfaith]

You’re not permitted to yell fire in a crowded theater, and pornography should be banned.

[reasonisfaith]

I can explain the limits of free speech, as determined by the courts.

But I think you know it already and don’t want to admit it because you know it applies to pornography.

[reasonisfaith]

Speaking of the acts our enemies take against us, I can’t help but notice how—other than at the very top of their ranks—none of them understand what their own motives are.

That is to say, the typical foot soldiers working to subvert our country are not able to explain even to themselves the logical basis for their actions.

[Jonty30]

I haven’t run away, but I am tiring of the overall arguement. It doesn’t matter what you want done about pornography, it is Constitutional.

Any law that is passed that outlaws pornography will be used against the Bible. However, you can’t see that because you think the Supreme Court will carve out an exception to this. They won’t. That’s not how law works.

Do you need me to say that the Supreme Court will make it a death penalty offense to be a liberal, with the death penalty for missing Sunday Church to end this conversation? I will say it just to end it, because you think the Supreme Court will carve out exemptions in Constitutional law that suits you.

I can’t help you if you are convinced of such a viewpoint because your viewpoint is 100% against the written words of the Constitution.

Write what you want, I won’t respond.

[Jonty30]

So should the book of Solomon should be banned by your reasoning, because it’s pornographic.

But I agree with you completely, America should become a Christian theocracy, where you can be killed for failing to go to church and failing to cite the middle word of any random verse given to you.

We can do this!!!

[reasonisfaith]

But your thinking is highly distorted.

Nobody kills people for these kinds of things, except in communist or fascist governments.

If the book of Solomon is pornographic, try selling it on the pornography market. (The fundamental laws of the free market are absolute.)

[reasonisfaith]

It’s true that the courts have yet to articulate a ruling banning pornography.

But when they do, the basis of the ruling will likely have to do with the following fundamental interests of the court:

1. national security

2. public safety

3. decency and morality

[reasonisfaith]

Let’s discuss how pornography directly relates in a substantive, cause-and-effect manner with the principles of:

1. national security

2. public safety

3. decency and morality

(Our enemies will do anything to prevent a national discussion of these facts.)

[linMcHlp]

For the record:

My college roomate and I were sitting in the back row of a movie theatre, and the movie had been running for about 5 minutes.

Between our seats, was a new metal conduit that exited the wall behind our seats, about 20 inches above our heads . . . and ran up to . . . and then entered the wall, very near the portal window where one of the theatre’ cameras was located.

We both heard a sharp pop, looked up the conduit and wall . . . and about 5 ft above, flame erupted from a conduit joint while smoke erupted from another joint were the conduit entered the wall near the camera.

We stood up, I made a loud whistle and in my best [military] commanding voice:

LADIES AND GENTLEMENT, THE THEATRE HAS A FIRE. PLEASE DO NOT PANIC, BUT PLEASE IMMEDIATELY LEAVE THE THEATRE.

My roommate stayed, helping people, while I moved quickly to alert the manager and call the fire department.

People left the theatre in an orderly fashion - no panic.

[reasonisfaith]

Fascinating!

[reasonisfaith]

This discussion has revealed much about the flimsy nature of the pro-pornography positions. They are reducible to:

1. the Bible is equivalent to pornography

2. pornography was the same two centuries ago as it is today

3. the left is so scary we have no choice but to submit to their way of doing things

Of note, # 1 above is refuted by the fact that the Bible has no street value on the pornography market.

We also established that the courts have yet to articulate a ruling banning pornography, and that when they do formulate a new perspective and ruling on pornography, it will have potential basis in the following interests:

1. national security – pornography destroys families, disrupts the process of normal activities

2. public safety – pornography cultivates hypersexual response which increased risk of rape and human trafficking

3. decency and morality – pornography distorts the perception individuals have about other individuals, creating a hypersexual response that is demonstrably hostile to our way of life in many ways