No matter. Any ruling that recognizes power of the states is okay with me. The 10th Amendment, and all that.
Good to know.
I’m more in favor of banned smartphones/tablets for anyone under 21.
Why are they afraid to outlaw porn?
pornography addiction is a very sick addiction.
Too many young people are imprinted with it these days.
Too bad it’s not going to work. A good VPN and an a node in a neutral state and “all your porn belongs to us” /semi sarc
If you’re on the court but can’t articulate a ruling against pornography, you need to re-examine every principle you ever thought you believed.
A character on Law and Order SVU who produced and distributed porn said: “I’ve been told the industry I’m in generates over 40 million dollars a year in revenue but I have never met one person who ever watches it.”
Pornographer Hugh Hefner skirted pornography laws by putting written articles in his stroke mags which qualified them as having “literary value”. (Artistic, scientific, literary, something else value)
We read them carefully, of course, shunning the pictorials.
>> to confirm their users are 18 or older.
Wouldn’t that be an age minimum?
At first, I thought they were hoping to prevent grandma from hosting an OF site.
No matter. Any ruling that recognizes power of the states is okay with me. The 10th Amendment, and all that.
This is a tough issue and I don’t have a solution
But we do have age restrictions for driving. Smoking. Drinking alcohol. Buying fireworks, etc.
We teach a toddler to navigate the stairs and they learn real quick that falling down the stairs hurts. We dont outlaw stairs.
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
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.
I can see Barrett writing this opinion, and the wide latina and the MumboJumbo lady writing the dissent. Don’t know how Kagan will rule.
Next age enforced access to Conservative and Christian sites?
One interesting story. In Christianity Today (I don’t subscribe or like it) they ran a story about a minister who was assigned to attack porn for its harm.
He acquainted himself with online porn for the first time in his life and then became totally addicted to it himself.
Much later article: (61% of Americans regularly view now).
More Christians Are Watching Porn, But Fewer Think It’s a Problem By Maria Baer.
Ministries expand to reach the 54 percent of churchgoers who say they view online pornography.
Freedom of speech does not cover propogating whatever you want to minors.
Since child pornography is illegal (as it should be), the inverse should also be illegal. If one desires to look at smut, one should prove their age of majority.
Each state should decide this. I believe this is a reasonable limitation to the 1st Amendment. Pornography damages young men’s and boy’s minds and they grow up to be cognitively and socially damaged due to its destructive and addictive power.
Again... this isn’t about porn.
This is about destroying anonymity on the internet. Requiring an ID to use the internet and therefore destroying free speech on the internet when they want to control the narrative next time.