Score one for Pornhub: 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 …
Essentially the government can’t limit the access to free speech (in this example: pornography) in the name of protecting minors beyond the least restrictive methods possible (e.g. parents of minors can already easily block access to these websites through many other software tools).
“adults without children may gain access to speech they have a right to see without having to identify themselves or provide their credit card information. Even adults with children may obtain access to the same speech on the same terms simply by turning off the filter on their home computers.”
Reno v ACLU as well. These court cases have been fundamental to how the Internet as we know it exists, at least here in the U.S., and now states are trying to wriggle around it and take action that they know to be unconstitutional. The new strategy is to pass an unconstitutional law and try to avoid responsibility by claiming they’re not violating the Constitution just because they are outsourcing enforcement to citizens.
Ohhh I got it, thanks for explaining it for me. Yeah that is bs then, hopefully any decisions deciding against 1st addmentment will be elevated and overturned
See Ashcroft v. ACLU (II)(2004)
Essentially the government can’t limit the access to free speech (in this example: pornography) in the name of protecting minors beyond the least restrictive methods possible (e.g. parents of minors can already easily block access to these websites through many other software tools).
“adults without children may gain access to speech they have a right to see without having to identify themselves or provide their credit card information. Even adults with children may obtain access to the same speech on the same terms simply by turning off the filter on their home computers.”
Reno v ACLU as well. These court cases have been fundamental to how the Internet as we know it exists, at least here in the U.S., and now states are trying to wriggle around it and take action that they know to be unconstitutional. The new strategy is to pass an unconstitutional law and try to avoid responsibility by claiming they’re not violating the Constitution just because they are outsourcing enforcement to citizens.
Ohhh I got it, thanks for explaining it for me. Yeah that is bs then, hopefully any decisions deciding against 1st addmentment will be elevated and overturned