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.
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.