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]

Your unsupported belief that the founders would protect pornography is ludicrous.

Pornography is demonstrably more dangerous than shouting fire in a crowded theater.

[Tell It Right]

Agreed. My favorite part of this is the respect for the 10th Amendment — leaving it for the states to decide.

[MNDude]

Playboy is coming out with an edition for married men.

It’ll have the same woman every month.

[Jonty30]

Can you show me in the Constitution where it says “Free expression, except pornography?”

It’s not up to you to ban things outside your home that you don’t like.

[dfwgator]

Back when the only way youngsters could get porn....

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

Can you show me in the Constitution where it says “Free expression, except pornography?”

At the time of the Constitution, homosexuality was a capital offense punishable by death, and remained so for many years.

That "free expression"?

[frank ballenger]

People used to have false bottoms on luggage so they could bring French published copies of books by American authors such as Henry Miller. And Lawrence Ferlinghetti risked bankruptcy selling the poetry book Howl by Allen Ginsberg at City Lights, resulting in years of court battles over freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court case “Roth v. United States” which established that material must be “utterly without redeeming social value” to be considered obscene, though this standard was later modified in “Miller v. California” to a more nuanced test of “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”.

Roth v. United States (1957) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Jan 1, 2009 — Roth test later overturned.

Free Speech Center
Roth v. United States
The decision was modified by Miller v. California which removed the “utterly without redeeming social value” test, and replaced it...

Now it has to be fought over again.

https://www.amazon.com/Howl-Trial-Battle-Free-Expression/dp/0872864790

https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538125908/The-People-v.-Ferlinghetti-The-Fight-to-Publish-Allen-Ginsbergs-Howl

[Jonty30]

I agree with you on pornography, but the Constitution still allows for it.

There are no buts in free expression.

[reasonisfaith]

Drugs haven’t been eliminated because the government became the drug dealers.

Outlawing pornography is a critical part of the anti-corruption movement. It can be done easily, with God’s help.

[Nextrush]

They enjoy it too much...sarc

The harsh reality is that laws about porn ‘evolved’ into liberality from the 1950’s to the 1970’s then the media revolution of satellite dishes and the internet.

The one area they regulated after all-out liberality was adopted in the early 1970’s was child porn.

The old TV disclaimer about content ‘for mature audiences’ when I was young comes to mind.

This is the most potent powerful drug its taboo to talk about.

Porn is part of what one author called “The Lust Virus” a pandemic of images a pseudosexual revolution a loss of reality.

https://roykfiles.com/books/lust-virus/

[reasonisfaith]

Can you explain how the founders intended to protect yelling fire in a crowded theater?

[Responsibility2nd]

Those who abuse their rights will often lose their rights.

And a nation that tolerates and legalizes porn will not long stand.

Take for example the United States. My, how the mighty has fallen.

[reasonisfaith]

The largely unknown aspect of porn is that it induces an eventual desire for child porn. This is known in behavioral science, and it’s one of the irrefutable arguments against porn.

[reasonisfaith]

See post #33 above.

[Jonty30]

The courts ruled on that, because of the immediate and demonstrable harm from yelling fire in a theatre.

You don’t think there was an equivalent to porn in the days of the Founding Fathers? I can most assure you that porn is age-old and the Founding Fathers had access to porn if they wanted it.

Just like advanced guns, there was porn in the days of the Founding Fathers.

[Jonty30]

I know about the progression of porn and were it can lead to.

[reasonisfaith]

Operators who go after the child traffickers also know this fact very well.

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

There are no buts in free expression.

So, slander laws are unconstitutional?

[reasonisfaith]

Everything about our constitution is Godly, including the First Amendment.

But you can’t make a Godly argument in favor of porn.

[reasonisfaith]

All arguments in the courts or the halls of Congress supporting pornography are logically flawed and as such they are apart from God.