Kansas Mom Sues Porn Sites Because Her Son Visited Chaturbate 30 Times
www.404media.co
The 14 year old's mother left an old laptop in a closet and now alleges it's adult sites' problem that he watched porn.

The 14 year old’s mother left an old laptop in a closet and now alleges it’s adult sites’ problem that he watched porn.

A Kansas mother who left an old laptop in a closet is suing multiple porn sites because her teenage son visited them on that computer.

The complaints, filed last week in the U.S. District Court for Kansas, allege that the teen had “unfettered access” to a variety of adult streaming sites, and accuses the sites of providing inadequate age verification as required by Kansas law.

A press release from the National Center for Sexual Exploitation, which is acting as co-counsel in this lawsuit, names Chaturbate, Jerkmate, Techpump Solutions (Superporn.com), and Titan Websites (Hentai City) as defendants in four different lawsuits.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    19 hours ago

    Just look at the case against Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine from a few decades ago.

    That was under a very different composition of judges.

    This isn’t the first time they’ve tried this shit. They lost miserably last time.

    The Larry Flynt case was notable because it was a significant change in the federal standard. Historically, the puritan anti-sex sentiment has been actively enforced within US law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law#Legal_issues_and_definitions

    The sale and distribution of obscene materials had been prohibited in most American states since the early 19th century, and by federal law since 1873. Adoption of obscenity laws in the United States at the federal level in 1873 was largely due to the efforts of Anthony Comstock, who created and led the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. Comstock’s intense efforts led to the passage of an anti-obscenity statute known as the Comstock Act which made it a crime to distribute “obscene” material through the post.

    Anti-obscenity laws endured for nearly a century prior to Miller. And the current government seems to be fixated on a return to that Old Thyme Religion.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        19 hours ago

        They’re protected by court precedent citing the 1st amendment. Any five judges can change that, assuming they don’t simply wave through a decision from the circuit courts that amount to the same.