The supreme court already has long allowed the law to ban "free speech" in advertising pornography to children or in ID checks for children consuming porn in real life. As much as some people want, the law is allowed to ban you from setting up a kiosk outside of an elementary school and selling children DVDs of hardcore penetration without checking IDs.
This ruling is upholding that the internet is also part of the real world and under the same rules. The imposition of ID checks to all people is justified as part of the imposition of ID checks to prevent distribution to children, and this is held in both the real world and online. Pornographers do not have an absolute right to show unlimited amounts of porn to 12 year olds, neither in real life nor in the internet.
the law is allowed to ban you from setting up a kiosk outside of an elementary school and selling children DVDs of hardcore penetration without checking IDs.
That's what the LGBLTWTF+ section of the school library is for.
You're correct about the mission creep, but I don't see much inherent value in defending porn. Pornographers and porn addicts contribute virtually nothing to defending meaningful political speech.
I'd add that while I think the law is largely unenforceable and stupid (because it's the internet, just find boobs anywhere), and I'm not thrilled about the long term consequences, this has long standing precedent.
We kinda have to face the facts here, we will NEVER maintain anonymity anywhere until we deal with the elephant in the room:
Parent enablers who forgo their responsibilities and OTHERS liberties because they either don't care enough to use the tools available to protect their kids or actively ENCOURAGE the practices that harm their kids as part of the attention seeking ideology (think on parents getting their kids to go to drag shows).
Until that spiny plant is gripped and crushed, anonymity will ALWAYS be under threat because their actions and inactions result in these rules going forward to protect children.
That's one aspect but you also can't deny a push for parents not to be as involved with their kids in lue of the state.
Think about how misapplied the term 'helicopter parents' is. It makes it easier to justify these rules when that culture is ingrained enough thst lots of parents don't even utilise parental controls..
The internet destroyed all that and parents were blamed for not parenting hard enough.
Well yeah, the failure of parenting is already assumed by them having access to the internet. If your child has unfettered access in that manner you are in fact not parenting hard enough.
I spent a few cumulative hours over the course of multiple devices and years setting up parental controls for my children's stuff, and a random check every now and again to make sure nothing slipped by. If you can't even be asked to do that, I have trouble believing you even care enough about your child period.
You can complain about how much harder it is to parent because of this, but there are 8 dozen reasons why parenting is harder these days than in the past. We either adapt and try to overcome, or just keep letting white birth rates be outpaced by niggers, Jeets, and bugmen who are ready to replace us.
It's actually almost easier to lock things up from kids via various tools. Limit kids' cell phone access and data use. Router-based whitelisting and blacklisting, as per network device. Etc etc.
Sure, maybe you can't cut it off 100%. But a sufficient level of massive inconvenience can easily make a difference. Parents are just too overworked and sometimes too incompetent.
And politicians will unfortunately use this argument even when parents are doing just fine anyway because politicians are getting paid by lobbyists to push these bills.
a slight but important nitpick: the ruling declares the state enforcing safety of a populist trumps the commercial anonymity of the populace.
based on what I'm reading, the ruling is all about the ability to view and speak anonymously, as opposed to the ability to view and speak at all. the supreme Court is basically saying you have the right to say in view whatever you like, but you don't have the right to do it anonymously.
What they're saying is that the state can impose condtions regarding under what circumstances you're allowed to speak. As in, "you're not allowed to speak at all, unless you disclose your identity first."
It's only how it works in the post-WWII, jew world order. In the past, anonymous writing was common. Some of the most influential works were written by authors who were either unknown at the time (some of them risked execution if discovered), or are unknown today.
Uhhh, really? You can write and leave physical notes and almost anything else anonymously. You could "potentially" get something published anonymously. Artwork. Photos. You can play music anonymously. Wearing disguises in real life also isn't necessarily illegal either.
And it's worth remembering that just because your face or person is visible doesn't mean your name is. Or your home address. Being anonymous doesn't necessarily require "total" invisibility.
What it's mainly about is whether or not you want to share/reveal vital personally identifying details.
Oh look, exactly what I’ve been saying. You’ll be getting a digital ID for the JWO, because if j’ws want to enslave you with a social credit system, they need to tag each of the stupid GoyCattle with a digital ID first. Your digital ID will be linked with your facial biometric data, which will be linked to palentir’s surveillance grid, which will keep tabs on you IRL and on your Internet activities so if you say something J’ish mafia doesn’t like on social media or share links they don’t like, you will have violated their community standards, meaning they can hurt you in real life, by restricting your digital ID for various services you’ll need it for. This government is defunct, the whole thing, including the Supreme Court, we are ruled by a foreign adversary and their useful idiot traitors in gov. They’re pushing you into JWO whether you like it or not, and they’ll pretend it was done through “democracy” when in reality, it’s all predetermined by j’ws, who use their puppets to make it look like you did this to yourself by not voting hard enough.
It's not about porn. The jews want everything on the Internet to be directly linked to the person who posted it, so they can punish you for posting "antisemitic hate speech" on a forum like this one. Porn is just the pretext being used to get there.
You're just inventing a story. You can go to the supreme court website and view who supported which side in the Amicus Curae.
Spoiler: a bunch of jewed and woke organizations on the opposition side (free speech), and a bunch of christian and right wing organizations on the support side (ban porn for children).
Your narrative is demonstrably false. Here's a counter-narrative that actually aligns with the facts: "The jews oppose ID on the internet, because they're the by far biggest users of astrturf and bots to push propaganda. With only real users online, everyone will get j-pilled really fast." It's far more in-line with the facts than this being some 5D chess to secretly support it while opposing it (though, I think they just want to push porn, no extra explanation required).
There are actually ways to verify identity without disclosing identity in any uniquely identifiable way. It's what basically every 2FA app does, so this isn't some obscure or unfamiliar technology.
Since this is possible to do, yet it is never proposed or required whenever discussing age verification online, it's fair to characterize all of these efforts as an attempt to deliberately strip anonymity (for tyrannical purposes).
The precise actors in question are kind of irrelevant to the point here. The GayRaceCommunistZOG dialectic is all about creating, "Heads I win, Tails you lose" situations and this is no better. Either unrestricted access to hardcore porn for minors, or tyrannical speech-control across the entire internet.
Can you give me one example of a 2FA implementation that would work? Where nobody in the login chain can know your identity, but you can still prove you're 18?
Every commercial 2FA app I know is intrinsically linked to verifying a known identity, so they do not provide anonymous verification.
Or they're hardware or secret key based, and their results can be shared and don't actually verify that the holder is 18+ (eg, physical authenticator). That works when your user wants to keep people out of their bank account, but doesn't work when they want to share their account online so everyone can login with it.
Edit: I forgot the third vitar requirement, that it needs to be sufficiently foolproof that the government can cheaply and efficiently implement and administrate it.
Can you give me one example of a 2FA implementation that would work? Where nobody in the login chain can know your identity, but you can still prove you're 18?
Every commercial 2FA app I know is intrinsically linked to verifying a known identity, so they do not provide anonymous verification.
The identity is known at some level, yes. There are actually 2 sides to this.
The identity-verifying service doesn't need to know what websites/services you're accessing. It just needs to verify you once, and then provide some seed for One-Time-Passwords.
A website/service that needs age-authorization doesn't need to know precisely who accesses the site. It just needs to know a Pass/Fail based on a one-time-password-generated key.
If it's done correctly then:
ID-verifier doesn't know what you're doing with your ID
Service-needing-ID doesn't know your ID directly, just whether it's verified or not.
So yeah, you can do this in a privacy-respecting way. It's ultimately not any more difficult than setting up an account with Google and using your Google login on a 3rd party website. (Google probably does track you across sites via their login, but that's not because they have to, it's because they are creepy fucks).
Now is that theoretically game-able? Yeah, any system can be gamed. Credit cards can be gamed, physical IDs can be stolen or faked, photos / biometrics can definitely be faked. There's no 100% system.
Just search it for "jew" and you'll find the jewish involvement.
And the "Christian" organizations listed in that same brief include the Zionist National Association of Evangelicals.
I've never heard of most of the organizations and individuals that filed briefs, but it's not a secret that most prominent right-wing people in America are Zionist wall-kissers. Texas also has anti-BDS laws, passed by the same right-wing politicians.
Go figure, the Supreme Court supports ZOG colluding with the j’ws who’ve completely monopolized our economy, saying you have no right to anonymous speech because the goal is to harm you if you’re a dissident, whether you speak publicly against the subverted system or whether you do so anonymously, they want to hurt you so bad nobody else will dare step up against them.
If you're an adult and a site that you don't want pointing towards your IRL details starts demanding ID - stop using that site. Let them lean on state busy bodies demanding ID.
I suspect it's mostly to keep the usual suspects from pushing depraved and/or incest p0rn on kids, though.
This is ridiculously hyperbolic.
The supreme court already has long allowed the law to ban "free speech" in advertising pornography to children or in ID checks for children consuming porn in real life. As much as some people want, the law is allowed to ban you from setting up a kiosk outside of an elementary school and selling children DVDs of hardcore penetration without checking IDs.
This ruling is upholding that the internet is also part of the real world and under the same rules. The imposition of ID checks to all people is justified as part of the imposition of ID checks to prevent distribution to children, and this is held in both the real world and online. Pornographers do not have an absolute right to show unlimited amounts of porn to 12 year olds, neither in real life nor in the internet.
That's what the LGBLTWTF+ section of the school library is for.
Its always "the children" that let the tyrants get their foot in the door.
They took over the whole building long ago.
You're correct about the mission creep, but I don't see much inherent value in defending porn. Pornographers and porn addicts contribute virtually nothing to defending meaningful political speech.
As a Texan, they did this to porn 2 years ago, and now they are wanting to do it to sites like this.
I have nothing nice to say about anyone who is for this for anything now.
Yep. You pretty much nailed it.
I'd add that while I think the law is largely unenforceable and stupid (because it's the internet, just find boobs anywhere), and I'm not thrilled about the long term consequences, this has long standing precedent.
We kinda have to face the facts here, we will NEVER maintain anonymity anywhere until we deal with the elephant in the room:
Parent enablers who forgo their responsibilities and OTHERS liberties because they either don't care enough to use the tools available to protect their kids or actively ENCOURAGE the practices that harm their kids as part of the attention seeking ideology (think on parents getting their kids to go to drag shows).
Until that spiny plant is gripped and crushed, anonymity will ALWAYS be under threat because their actions and inactions result in these rules going forward to protect children.
Which is why many groups don't want it dealt with.
Parents didn’t have to worry about this in the past.
Porn was locked up tightly with a key and you needed to be an adult to view it.
The internet destroyed all that and parents were blamed for not parenting hard enough. Now the law is finally catching up with the internet.
That's one aspect but you also can't deny a push for parents not to be as involved with their kids in lue of the state.
Think about how misapplied the term 'helicopter parents' is. It makes it easier to justify these rules when that culture is ingrained enough thst lots of parents don't even utilise parental controls..
lolno, finding a discarded porn mag in the bushes literally happened so much it was more than just a meme about ye olde pre-internet times..
You weren’t even around at that time.
Well yeah, the failure of parenting is already assumed by them having access to the internet. If your child has unfettered access in that manner you are in fact not parenting hard enough.
I spent a few cumulative hours over the course of multiple devices and years setting up parental controls for my children's stuff, and a random check every now and again to make sure nothing slipped by. If you can't even be asked to do that, I have trouble believing you even care enough about your child period.
You can complain about how much harder it is to parent because of this, but there are 8 dozen reasons why parenting is harder these days than in the past. We either adapt and try to overcome, or just keep letting white birth rates be outpaced by niggers, Jeets, and bugmen who are ready to replace us.
BS. even post internet video rental places in inner cities had the adult section behind unlocked saloon doors you could see right through.
Letting your kids on the internet unattended is the same as letting them go out and talk to strangers unattended.
It's actually almost easier to lock things up from kids via various tools. Limit kids' cell phone access and data use. Router-based whitelisting and blacklisting, as per network device. Etc etc.
Sure, maybe you can't cut it off 100%. But a sufficient level of massive inconvenience can easily make a difference. Parents are just too overworked and sometimes too incompetent.
And politicians will unfortunately use this argument even when parents are doing just fine anyway because politicians are getting paid by lobbyists to push these bills.
a slight but important nitpick: the ruling declares the state enforcing safety of a populist trumps the commercial anonymity of the populace.
based on what I'm reading, the ruling is all about the ability to view and speak anonymously, as opposed to the ability to view and speak at all. the supreme Court is basically saying you have the right to say in view whatever you like, but you don't have the right to do it anonymously.
What they're saying is that the state can impose condtions regarding under what circumstances you're allowed to speak. As in, "you're not allowed to speak at all, unless you disclose your identity first."
That’s how it works in the real world. There are very few cases you can speak or write anonymously.
It's only how it works in the post-WWII, jew world order. In the past, anonymous writing was common. Some of the most influential works were written by authors who were either unknown at the time (some of them risked execution if discovered), or are unknown today.
During the Revolutionary Era, the Founding Fathers wrote under pseudonyms because they knew what would happen to those criticizing King George III.
Salman Rushdie had to go into hiding because he wrote a book Muslims considered to be blasphemous. A little anonymity would've helped him a lot.
Uhhh, really? You can write and leave physical notes and almost anything else anonymously. You could "potentially" get something published anonymously. Artwork. Photos. You can play music anonymously. Wearing disguises in real life also isn't necessarily illegal either.
And it's worth remembering that just because your face or person is visible doesn't mean your name is. Or your home address. Being anonymous doesn't necessarily require "total" invisibility.
What it's mainly about is whether or not you want to share/reveal vital personally identifying details.
true
Rip. Last bastion of internet. Being anonumous.
Somehow, the internet is exempt from the real world?
Porn is a big reason why you don’t see large White families anymore. It’s been controlled by ((())) to make Whites sterilize themselves.
Internet porn is a huge reason why any White woman under 37 are raging whores and why many White dudes over 30 have never been kissed.
Yes which was always the case pre progressive bullshit rulings
Gee thanks Texas...
Thomas is wrong on this one.
Oh look, exactly what I’ve been saying. You’ll be getting a digital ID for the JWO, because if j’ws want to enslave you with a social credit system, they need to tag each of the stupid GoyCattle with a digital ID first. Your digital ID will be linked with your facial biometric data, which will be linked to palentir’s surveillance grid, which will keep tabs on you IRL and on your Internet activities so if you say something J’ish mafia doesn’t like on social media or share links they don’t like, you will have violated their community standards, meaning they can hurt you in real life, by restricting your digital ID for various services you’ll need it for. This government is defunct, the whole thing, including the Supreme Court, we are ruled by a foreign adversary and their useful idiot traitors in gov. They’re pushing you into JWO whether you like it or not, and they’ll pretend it was done through “democracy” when in reality, it’s all predetermined by j’ws, who use their puppets to make it look like you did this to yourself by not voting hard enough.
judeo Christians strike again!
Judeo-anything is the side trying to support porn, not ban it.
It's not about porn. The jews want everything on the Internet to be directly linked to the person who posted it, so they can punish you for posting "antisemitic hate speech" on a forum like this one. Porn is just the pretext being used to get there.
You're just inventing a story. You can go to the supreme court website and view who supported which side in the Amicus Curae.
Spoiler: a bunch of jewed and woke organizations on the opposition side (free speech), and a bunch of christian and right wing organizations on the support side (ban porn for children).
Your narrative is demonstrably false. Here's a counter-narrative that actually aligns with the facts: "The jews oppose ID on the internet, because they're the by far biggest users of astrturf and bots to push propaganda. With only real users online, everyone will get j-pilled really fast." It's far more in-line with the facts than this being some 5D chess to secretly support it while opposing it (though, I think they just want to push porn, no extra explanation required).
There are actually ways to verify identity without disclosing identity in any uniquely identifiable way. It's what basically every 2FA app does, so this isn't some obscure or unfamiliar technology.
Since this is possible to do, yet it is never proposed or required whenever discussing age verification online, it's fair to characterize all of these efforts as an attempt to deliberately strip anonymity (for tyrannical purposes).
The precise actors in question are kind of irrelevant to the point here. The GayRaceCommunistZOG dialectic is all about creating, "Heads I win, Tails you lose" situations and this is no better. Either unrestricted access to hardcore porn for minors, or tyrannical speech-control across the entire internet.
Those aren't the only options.
Can you give me one example of a 2FA implementation that would work? Where nobody in the login chain can know your identity, but you can still prove you're 18?
Every commercial 2FA app I know is intrinsically linked to verifying a known identity, so they do not provide anonymous verification.
Or they're hardware or secret key based, and their results can be shared and don't actually verify that the holder is 18+ (eg, physical authenticator). That works when your user wants to keep people out of their bank account, but doesn't work when they want to share their account online so everyone can login with it.
Edit: I forgot the third vitar requirement, that it needs to be sufficiently foolproof that the government can cheaply and efficiently implement and administrate it.
The identity is known at some level, yes. There are actually 2 sides to this.
The identity-verifying service doesn't need to know what websites/services you're accessing. It just needs to verify you once, and then provide some seed for One-Time-Passwords.
A website/service that needs age-authorization doesn't need to know precisely who accesses the site. It just needs to know a Pass/Fail based on a one-time-password-generated key.
If it's done correctly then:
So yeah, you can do this in a privacy-respecting way. It's ultimately not any more difficult than setting up an account with Google and using your Google login on a 3rd party website. (Google probably does track you across sites via their login, but that's not because they have to, it's because they are creepy fucks).
Now is that theoretically game-able? Yeah, any system can be gamed. Credit cards can be gamed, physical IDs can be stolen or faked, photos / biometrics can definitely be faked. There's no 100% system.
Here's one of the briefs in favor of the law:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1122/332650/20241122182608914_FSC%20v%20Paxton%20Brief%20of%20Amici%20Curiae%20Major%20Religious%20Orgs.pdf
Just search it for "jew" and you'll find the jewish involvement.
And the "Christian" organizations listed in that same brief include the Zionist National Association of Evangelicals.
I've never heard of most of the organizations and individuals that filed briefs, but it's not a secret that most prominent right-wing people in America are Zionist wall-kissers. Texas also has anti-BDS laws, passed by the same right-wing politicians.
You'll live lib
Go figure, the Supreme Court supports ZOG colluding with the j’ws who’ve completely monopolized our economy, saying you have no right to anonymous speech because the goal is to harm you if you’re a dissident, whether you speak publicly against the subverted system or whether you do so anonymously, they want to hurt you so bad nobody else will dare step up against them.
Well fuck.
Never understood the commercial connection between porn and free speech. It was stupid then and it’s stupid now.
Because of our heroes Hugh Heffner and Larry Flynt and free expression something something!
If you're an adult and a site that you don't want pointing towards your IRL details starts demanding ID - stop using that site. Let them lean on state busy bodies demanding ID.
I suspect it's mostly to keep the usual suspects from pushing depraved and/or incest p0rn on kids, though.
Papers please
Somebody's mad that kids can't watch tranny porn anymore.