Posted on 09/01/2023 12:40:32 AM PDT by RandFan
A federal judge ruled Thursday that a Texas law requiring pornography sites to institute age-verification measures — and add prominent warning labels about the alleged dangers of porn — violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment prohibition against free-speech restrictions.
A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Texas legislation was filed Aug. 4 by the Free Speech Coalition, a group that included Pornhub’s parent company, adult industry advocacy groups and an adult performer (referred to in filings as “Jane Doe”).
Under the Texas law, which was set to go into effect Sept. 1, 2023, porn sites would have been required to use “reasonable age verification methods” to “verify that an individual attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older.” In addition, pornography sites would have been forced to display a “Texas Health and Human Services Warning” in at least 14-point font — one such warning was specified to read, “Pornography increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography” — along with a national toll-free number for people with mental health disorders. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed H.B. 1181 into law on June 12.
In the Aug. 31 ruling, Senior U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas wrote, “The Court finds that H.B. 1181 is unconstitutional on its face.” The ruling enjoined Angela Colmenero, acting attorney general of Texas, from taking any enforcement action under H.B. 1181 “pending further order or final judgment.”
“The statute is not narrowly tailored and chills the speech of Plaintiffs and adults who wish to access sexual materials,” Ezra said in the decision. “[T]he law is not narrowly tailored because it substantially regulates protected speech, is severely underinclusive, and uses overly restrictive enforcement methods.”
(Excerpt) Read more at variety.com ...
There are those who think porn is an abomination and should be restricted and then there are those who are constitutionalists and say it's protected speech by the First Amendment.
Where do you stand?
What makes pro-porn people “constitutionalists” (sic)?
Porn isn’t speech.
I would describe myself as more libertarian and thought this issue was settled in the 60s!
But now with the prevalence of porn are States allowed to pursue reasonable age related restrictions?
I dont know.
Would be an interesting case for the Supreme Court and perhaps a landmark one...
Definitions:
White House: Groomer in Chief
The Left thinks the First Amendment protects porn for kids but does not protect political speech they don’t like.
Mental Health verification: “I did not vote for the current Groomer in Chief occupying the White House”
Proceed.....
❌ “This is an Unhealthy Non-Verified Site”
Healthy hotline re-direct.....
I stand with the First Amendment. The kids need better parents.
I’m wondering how the Supreme Court would rule on this.
I think they would side with you but it could be close!
Making porn is “speech”. Viewing porn by children, not so much. Why restrict children from making porn? That seem the perverted next step.
Technology has replaced the parents so some reasonable age rules regarding accessing porno sites is logical.
The hard work is in defining “reasonable” within the context of the Frist Amendment.
By definition, minors do not enjoy full rights but are under the supervision of their parents.
There is an argument to be had i.e kids cannot buy tobacco or alcohol. The States can regulate this, right?
This will go to the Supreme Court.
One thing about the 1960’s porn wasn’t as prevalent/pervasive as it is now.
Some of the justices maybe sympathetic.
Show me a single founding father (constitutionalist) who would stand with granting Canadian pornhub free access to children.
It’s amazing to see so many people standing with social media companies and purveyors of filth as they demand unfettered access to children.
Shows how far we have fallen that their sophistry spins this as free speech. No founder would agree.
Don’t know what 60s you are referring to. In the 60s a 12 or 13 year old couldn’t walk into a porn theater or buy playboy.
Sorry I should say the 70’s / 80s with the Hustler case and Larry Flynt
Before my time
The hustler case was about parody. Nothing more. But even in the 80s 12 and 13 year old kids couldn’t walk into a porn theater or buy hustler. But that was before the revolutionary socialist revolution in America. Now they can get abortions or sex changed at any age.
I understand the argument but it seems accepted that the Hustler case effectively legalized it.
Do you think the Supreme Court might want to weigh in? Its been a long time.
‘I understand the argument but it seems accepted that the Hustler case effectively legalized it.”
Don’t forget COPA, The Children’s Online Protection Act. The GOP Congress passed it at the dawn of the internet era. Clinton signed it.
The Supreme Court threw it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.