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.
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.
Making porn is “speech”. Viewing porn by children, not so much. Why restrict children from making porn? That seem the perverted next step.
By definition, minors do not enjoy full rights but are under the supervision of their parents.
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.
So I guess, “Movie Ratings” are also now illegal ...
People can use a VPN to appear from anywhere. The argument is pointless if one is pragmatic.
No more movie ratings such as R rating (no minors allowed without adult permission) or X rating (no minors allowed)?
No more "You must be 18 to view this website" for firearm websites?
Alcohol and cigarette companies can market directly to children as long as they don't ask for age verification?
I note that U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra does everything possible to hide his residence, his family members, his religion, his organizations other than the usual incestuous legal groups. This is now quite common in the legal profession and is a strong indication that judges live in fear for their lives and the lives of their family. It’s a long way from the days of Judge Roy Bean.
Not familiar with the site, will have to go check it out.
Just kidding.
The “court” is wrong. One needs to show proof of age to do adult things, why does the court, in this realm, feel like a mere inconvenience to adults outweighs the basic well-being of children? What am I missing here.
I recall watching a lecture by a SCOTUS justice whose career spanned the 60s through the 90s. When it came to the topic of Free Speech, he shook his head and said that every such case involved truly reprehensible plaintiffs, Nazis, pornographers, racists, and the like, but they had to hold their nose nevertheless and protect the 1st Amendment.
I would argue that the law can not be enforced and the question is moot.
Honestly, I don’t think the age verification requirement is the major sticking point in this legislation...it is more likely the forced writing in at least size 14 font that is probably the stickler.
Just my opinion. Age verification is obviously legal, as laws currently require stores to check your ID before purchasing spray paint, cigarettes, alcohol, certain drugs, etc., but if in addition to checking your ID, the store clerk had to tell you a specific phrase, in a specific tone and volume about how sniffing paint, smoking cigarettes, and/or drinking alcohol is hazardous to your health, I believe the stores would have a solid leg on which to stand when filing a lawsuit about said law.