| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 62:49:42 |
| Calls: | 482 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,072 |
| Messages: | 96,210 |
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites
By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law,
denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law
is not unconstitutional.
"Adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification . . . "
We don't?
Americans have long had the right to write anonymously. Age verification removes anonymity.
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites
By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025 >>https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law,
denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law
is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and use of >VPNs.
Wait for Texas to try and make circumvention of the age verification >requirement by spoofing one's location a crime.
"Adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification . . . "
We don't?
Americans have long had the right to write anonymously. Age verification >>removes anonymity.
What are you writing while watching porn? Is it kind of like peeing your name >in the snow?
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites
By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law,
denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law
is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and use of >> VPNs.
The father will ask the pre-teen son to help him set up age
verificationn.
Wait for Texas to try and make circumvention of the age verification
requirement by spoofing one's location a crime.
The Illinois Secretary of State said that Texas attempted to enforce
abortion law by accessing Illinois database of license-plate readers to
see which women had travelled here for an abortion as those who assist
women in such travel are subject to state law.
It's the Fugitive Slave Act all over again.
"Adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification . . . "
We don't?
Americans have long had the right to write anonymously. Age verification >>> removes anonymity.
What are you writing while watching porn? Is it kind of like peeing your name
in the snow?
Hey! You watch pr0n the way you want to and I'll watch the way I want to.
Jun 28, 2025 at 3:18:06 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
Wait for Texas to try and make circumvention of the age verification >>>requirement by spoofing one's location a crime.
The Illinois Secretary of State said that Texas attempted to enforce >>abortion law by accessing Illinois database of license-plate readers to
see which women had travelled here for an abortion as those who assist >>women in such travel are subject to state law.
It's the Fugitive Slave Act all over again.
How would license plate data prove aiding and abetting? Unless there's
some other testimonial evidence to go with it, all it proves is that a
car with Texas plates traveled to Illinois. It proves nothing about the >purpose for the travel.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 3:18:06 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
Wait for Texas to try and make circumvention of the age verification
requirement by spoofing one's location a crime.
The Illinois Secretary of State said that Texas attempted to enforce
abortion law by accessing Illinois database of license-plate readers to
see which women had travelled here for an abortion as those who assist
women in such travel are subject to state law.
It's the Fugitive Slave Act all over again.
How would license plate data prove aiding and abetting? Unless there's
some other testimonial evidence to go with it, all it proves is that a
car with Texas plates traveled to Illinois. It proves nothing about the
purpose for the travel.
It's an investigative technique. A woman returns to Texas who is no
longer pregnant. Police open an investigation. The license plate reader
data is used to get names. They start interviewing people who don't understand that they need to ask for an attorney hoping one will crack.
Illinois has two enormous abortion clinics built within the last few
years, one in the St. Louis suburbs and one in Carbondale, anticipating demand from out of state. Police know where there are license plate
readers on typical routes to these clinics.
State law prohibits accessing this data to investigate unlawful out of
state travel; Texas police broke Illinois law. But I don't see how a cop
out of state can be arrested for accessing records in an investigation.
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites
By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025 >>https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law,
denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law
is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and use of >VPNs.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites
By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025 >>>https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law, >>>denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law
is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and use of >>VPNs.
Here's an article listing a lot of anonymous speech cases. Generally, >anonymity is protected with the major exception of campaign disclosure.
Intriguingly, dissenting from a denial of cert, Clarence Thomas said
there could be a need to protect campaign donors from disclosure in case
of potential retribution, but he has no such concern here.
Why wouldn't age verification infringe upon the right of anonymity?
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites
By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law,
denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law
is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and use of >> VPNs.
Here's an article listing a lot of anonymous speech cases. Generally, anonymity is protected with the major exception of campaign disclosure,
Intriguingly, dissenting from a denial of cert, Clarence Thomas said
there could be a need to protect campaign donors from disclosure in case
of potential retribution, but he has no such concern here.
Why wouldn't age verification infringe upon the right of anonymity?
ahk@chinet.com wrote:
His opinion states that Texas is exercising a traditional power to
prevent minors from accessing obscene material (note that under a lne
of cases in the 1960s, there is no First Amendment right to publish
obscene material).
"Adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification . . . "
We don't?
If we did, all those places carding for alcohol purchases would be
violating adults' rights.
On 6/28/2025 7:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites
By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law,
denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law >>>> is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and use of
VPNs.
Here's an article listing a lot of anonymous speech cases. Generally,
anonymity is protected with the major exception of campaign disclosure,
Intriguingly, dissenting from a denial of cert, Clarence Thomas said
there could be a need to protect campaign donors from disclosure in case
of potential retribution, but he has no such concern here.
Why wouldn't age verification infringe upon the right of anonymity?
Because, unless specified to the nearest microsecond, age doesn't
usefully identify an individual.
Jun 29, 2025 at 8:20:37 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>:
6/28/2025 7:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites
By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025 >>>>>https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law, >>>>>denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law >>>>>is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and >>>>use of VPNs.
Here's an article listing a lot of anonymous speech cases. Generally, >>>anonymity is protected with the major exception of campaign disclosure,
Intriguingly, dissenting from a denial of cert, Clarence Thomas said >>>there could be a need to protect campaign donors from disclosure in case >>>of potential retribution, but he has no such concern here.
Why wouldn't age verification infringe upon the right of anonymity?
Because, unless specified to the nearest microsecond, age doesn't
usefully identify an individual.
Yes, but the only practical way to verify people's age en masse is to
require them to provide an identity document, which typically provides
more info than just the person's age.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 29, 2025 at 8:20:37 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>:
6/28/2025 7:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites
By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law, >>>>>> denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law >>>>>> is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and >>>>> use of VPNs.
Here's an article listing a lot of anonymous speech cases. Generally,
anonymity is protected with the major exception of campaign disclosure,
Intriguingly, dissenting from a denial of cert, Clarence Thomas said
there could be a need to protect campaign donors from disclosure in case >>>> of potential retribution, but he has no such concern here.
Why wouldn't age verification infringe upon the right of anonymity?
Because, unless specified to the nearest microsecond, age doesn't
usefully identify an individual.
Yes, but the only practical way to verify people's age en masse is to
require them to provide an identity document, which typically provides
more info than just the person's age.
So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment
protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First
Amendment protect anonymity here?
Yes, but the only practical way to verify people's age en masse is to >>require them to provide an identity document, which typically provides
more info than just the person's age.
So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling >seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment
protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First
Amendment protect anonymity here?
On Jun 29, 2025 at 12:59:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 29, 2025 at 8:20:37 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>:
6/28/2025 7:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites >>>>>>> By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law, >>>>>>> denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law >>>>>>> is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and >>>>>> use of VPNs.
Here's an article listing a lot of anonymous speech cases. Generally, >>>>> anonymity is protected with the major exception of campaign disclosure, >>
Intriguingly, dissenting from a denial of cert, Clarence Thomas said >>>>> there could be a need to protect campaign donors from disclosure in case >>>>> of potential retribution, but he has no such concern here.
Why wouldn't age verification infringe upon the right of anonymity?
Because, unless specified to the nearest microsecond, age doesn't
usefully identify an individual.
Yes, but the only practical way to verify people's age en masse is to
require them to provide an identity document, which typically provides
more info than just the person's age.
So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling
seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment
protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First
Amendment protect anonymity here?
Clarence isn't saying the 'speakers' can't 'speak' anonymously. It's their audience that has no right to anonymity.
Jun 29, 2025 at 12:59:53 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 29, 2025 at 8:20:37 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>:
6/28/2025 7:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites >>>>>>>By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025 >>>>>>>https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law, >>>>>>>denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law >>>>>>>is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and >>>>>>use of VPNs.
Here's an article listing a lot of anonymous speech cases. Generally, >>>>>anonymity is protected with the major exception of campaign disclosure,
Intriguingly, dissenting from a denial of cert, Clarence Thomas said >>>>>there could be a need to protect campaign donors from disclosure in case >>>>>of potential retribution, but he has no such concern here.
Why wouldn't age verification infringe upon the right of anonymity?
Because, unless specified to the nearest microsecond, age doesn't >>>>usefully identify an individual.
Yes, but the only practical way to verify people's age en masse is to >>>require them to provide an identity document, which typically provides >>>more info than just the person's age.
So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling >>seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment
protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First >>Amendment protect anonymity here?
Clarence isn't saying the 'speakers' can't 'speak' anonymously. It's their >audience that has no right to anonymity.
On 6/29/2025 4:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 29, 2025 at 12:59:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 29, 2025 at 8:20:37 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>:
6/28/2025 7:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites >>>>>>>> By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law, >>>>>>>> denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law
is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and >>>>>>> use of VPNs.
Here's an article listing a lot of anonymous speech cases. Generally, >>>>>> anonymity is protected with the major exception of campaign disclosure, >>>
Intriguingly, dissenting from a denial of cert, Clarence Thomas said >>>>>> there could be a need to protect campaign donors from disclosure in case
of potential retribution, but he has no such concern here.
Why wouldn't age verification infringe upon the right of anonymity?
Because, unless specified to the nearest microsecond, age doesn't
usefully identify an individual.
Yes, but the only practical way to verify people's age en masse is to >>>> require them to provide an identity document, which typically provides >>>> more info than just the person's age.
How can a document be verified en masse?
So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling >>> seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment
protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First
Amendment protect anonymity here?
Clarence isn't saying the 'speakers' can't 'speak' anonymously. It's their >> audience that has no right to anonymity.
You misspelled 'Clarabell'. Especially if that's what he's saying...
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 29, 2025 at 12:59:53 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 29, 2025 at 8:20:37 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>:
6/28/2025 7:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites >>>>>>>> By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law, >>>>>>>> denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law >>>>>>>> is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and >>>>>>> use of VPNs.
Here's an article listing a lot of anonymous speech cases. Generally, >>>>>> anonymity is protected with the major exception of campaign disclosure,
Intriguingly, dissenting from a denial of cert, Clarence Thomas said >>>>>> there could be a need to protect campaign donors from disclosure in case >>>>>> of potential retribution, but he has no such concern here.
Why wouldn't age verification infringe upon the right of anonymity?
Because, unless specified to the nearest microsecond, age doesn't
usefully identify an individual.
Yes, but the only practical way to verify people's age en masse is to
require them to provide an identity document, which typically provides >>>> more info than just the person's age.
So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling >>> seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment
protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First
Amendment protect anonymity here?
Clarence isn't saying the 'speakers' can't 'speak' anonymously. It's their >> audience that has no right to anonymity.
It's an infringement upon time, place, and manner. The First Amendment
is a civil right for the speaker and publisher to reach the audience and
for an audience to hear a speaker and to read a publication.
One of the listed opinions found a state law unconstitutional that
required political literature to identify who paid for it. If the
publisher may be anonymous, then the audience may also be anonymous. If
there had been a state law limiting distribution of political literature
to identified recipients, that would have been unconstitutional.
Texas law is a restriction on distribution of pr0n that is not obscene,
which has First Amendment protection, not just obscene material that
lacks First Amendment protection. Distribution is part of publishing.
The First Amendment protects the most provocative speech, both speaker
and audience. State law may not regulate what the speaker says, but until this decision, state law would not have regulated the audience without
strict scrutiny. Maybe security would have been required given a very
large audience, or an auditorium that meets building and fire codes. Such regulations would meet strict scrutiny.
But a statute that no member of the audience could attend without
identifying himself would not have met strict scrutiny. With this
decision, strict scrutiny no longer applies.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
[snip]
Yes, but the only practical way to verify people's age en masse is to >>>require them to provide an identity document, which typically provides >>>more info than just the person's age.
So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling >>seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment
protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First >>Amendment protect anonymity here?
and let's ask Robert Bork, too.
On Jun 29, 2025 at 2:28:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/29/2025 4:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 29, 2025 at 12:59:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 29, 2025 at 8:20:37 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>:
6/28/2025 7:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites >>>>>>>>> By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law, >>>>>>>>> denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law
is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and >>>>>>>> use of VPNs.
Here's an article listing a lot of anonymous speech cases. Generally, >>>>>>> anonymity is protected with the major exception of campaign disclosure,
Intriguingly, dissenting from a denial of cert, Clarence Thomas said >>>>>>> there could be a need to protect campaign donors from disclosure in case
of potential retribution, but he has no such concern here.
Why wouldn't age verification infringe upon the right of anonymity? >>>>Because, unless specified to the nearest microsecond, age doesn't >>>>>> usefully identify an individual.
Yes, but the only practical way to verify people's age en masse is to >>>>> require them to provide an identity document, which typically provides >>>>> more info than just the person's age.
How can a document be verified en masse?
It's the age of the mass of customers of a given web site that's at issue. The >only way to do that in any practical way is ask for an identity document from >each customer (driver license, ID card, etc.) and those documents don't just >have a person's age on them. They have a lot of other identifying >information.
. . .
So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling >>>seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment >>>protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First >>>Amendment protect anonymity here?
and let's ask Robert Bork, too.
You whooshed me. I don't know what reported opinions with regard to
speech and publishing he wrote on the D.C. Circuit Court.
On Jun 29, 2025 at 2:33:02 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 29, 2025 at 12:59:53 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 29, 2025 at 8:20:37 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>:
6/28/2025 7:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites >>>>>>>>> By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law, >>>>>>>>> denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law
is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and >>>>>>>> use of VPNs.
Here's an article listing a lot of anonymous speech cases. Generally, >>>>>>> anonymity is protected with the major exception of campaign disclosure, >>
Intriguingly, dissenting from a denial of cert, Clarence Thomas said >>>>>>> there could be a need to protect campaign donors from disclosure in case
of potential retribution, but he has no such concern here.
Why wouldn't age verification infringe upon the right of anonymity?
Because, unless specified to the nearest microsecond, age doesn't
usefully identify an individual.
Yes, but the only practical way to verify people's age en masse is to >>>>> require them to provide an identity document, which typically provides >>>>> more info than just the person's age.
So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling >>>> seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment
protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First
Amendment protect anonymity here?
Clarence isn't saying the 'speakers' can't 'speak' anonymously. It's their >>> audience that has no right to anonymity.
It's an infringement upon time, place, and manner. The First Amendment
is a civil right for the speaker and publisher to reach the audience and
for an audience to hear a speaker and to read a publication.
Well, no. You have a guaranteed right to speak. You don't have a guaranteed >right for anyone to listen to you.
One of the listed opinions found a state law unconstitutional that
required political literature to identify who paid for it. If the
publisher may be anonymous, then the audience may also be anonymous. If
there had been a state law limiting distribution of political literature
to identified recipients, that would have been unconstitutional.
Texas law is a restriction on distribution of pr0n that is not obscene,
which has First Amendment protection, not just obscene material that
lacks First Amendment protection. Distribution is part of publishing.
The First Amendment protects the most provocative speech, both speaker
and audience. State law may not regulate what the speaker says, but until
this decision, state law would not have regulated the audience without
strict scrutiny. Maybe security would have been required given a very
large audience, or an auditorium that meets building and fire codes. Such
regulations would meet strict scrutiny.
But a statute that no member of the audience could attend without
identifying himself would not have met strict scrutiny. With this
decision, strict scrutiny no longer applies.
In <103sbmg$1np92$2@dont-email.me> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
[snip]
So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling >>>>seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment >>>>protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First >>>>Amendment protect anonymity here?
and let's ask Robert Bork, too.
You whooshed me. I don't know what reported opinions with regard to
speech and publishing he wrote on the D.C. Circuit Court.
His history is in the same extended family. When his
video tape rental records got leaked and publicized,
it led to laws about privacy. well, I'll quote wiki:
On September 25, the City Paper published Dolan's survey of Bork's
rentals in a cover story titled "The Bork Tapes".[4] The revealed
tapes proved to be modest, innocuous, and non-salacious, consisting
of a garden-variety of films such as thrillers, British drama,
and those by Alfred Hitchcock.[5][6][7] The subsequent leakage
and coverage of the tapes resulted in Congress passing the
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which forbids the sharing of
video tape rental information, amidst a bipartisan consensus on
intellectual privacy.[8][9][10] Proponents of the VPPA,
including Senator Patrick Leahy, contended that the leakage
of Bork's tapes was an outrage.[11][12] The bill was passed in
just over a year after the incident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bork_tapes
On Jun 29, 2025 at 2:28:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/29/2025 4:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 29, 2025 at 12:59:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 29, 2025 at 8:20:37 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>:
6/28/2025 7:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Court allows Texas' law on age-verification for pornography sites >>>>>>>>> By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/
Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?
To protect children, Texas wrote the ultimate nanny state into law, >>>>>>>>> denying adults the ability to surf for pr0n anonymously. The state law
is not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional, but easily mooted given the easy access to and >>>>>>>> use of VPNs.
Here's an article listing a lot of anonymous speech cases. Generally, >>>>>>> anonymity is protected with the major exception of campaign disclosure,
Intriguingly, dissenting from a denial of cert, Clarence Thomas said >>>>>>> there could be a need to protect campaign donors from disclosure in case
of potential retribution, but he has no such concern here.
Why wouldn't age verification infringe upon the right of anonymity? >>>>Because, unless specified to the nearest microsecond, age doesn't >>>>>> usefully identify an individual.
Yes, but the only practical way to verify people's age en masse is to >>>>> require them to provide an identity document, which typically provides >>>>> more info than just the person's age.
How can a document be verified en masse?
It's the age of the mass of customers of a given web site that's at issue. The
only way to do that in any practical way is ask for an identity document from each customer (driver license, ID card, etc.) and those documents don't just have a person's age on them. They have a lot of other identifying information.
So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling >>>> seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment
protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First
Amendment protect anonymity here?
Clarence isn't saying the 'speakers' can't 'speak' anonymously. It's their
audience that has no right to anonymity.
You misspelled 'Clarabell'. Especially if that's what he's saying...
?!?!
ahk@chinet.com wrote:
I've been required to identify myself submitting a scan of a driver's >>license and a photograph of my face.
On various Web sites, I've clicked a button "Yes I am over 18" but that >>doesn't verify that I am a user who is over 18.
There are third-party verification services. You verify yourself once,
and you're good for any site using that service.
I don't know how much they cost, but I'm generally okay with porn sites >having to bear expenses to be responsible.