@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 1 year agoPornhub Sues Texas Over Age Verification Lawwww.vice.comexternal-linkmessage-square285fedilinkarrow-up11.17Karrow-down129cross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
arrow-up11.14Karrow-down1external-linkPornhub Sues Texas Over Age Verification Lawwww.vice.com@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 1 year agomessage-square285fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
minus-squarephillaholiclinkfedilinkEnglish3•1 year agoThere are already age limitations that are constitutional. You can’t run for office, buy alcohol, drive a car etc.
minus-squarepjhenry1216linkfedilink2•1 year agoThat’s not speech. You can age limit things, but not on speech. Beyond that, the limitations on speech have to meet certain conditions where it’s in the publics best interest and doesn’t put too much burden on the public.
minus-squarephillaholiclinkfedilinkEnglish1•1 year agoRestricting access to explicit material is the same as restricting alcohol or tobacco.
minus-squarepjhenry1216linkfedilink2•edit-21 year agoTobacco is not speech. Edit: plus one is an economic regulation .The other is not. Like, you can smoke tobacco at really any age. Just can buy it at any age.
minus-squarephillaholiclinkfedilinkEnglish1•1 year agoPossession is illegal in a majority of states https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-r-0269.htm
minus-squarepjhenry1216linkfedilink0•1 year agoYou’re still ignoring my first point which is the much more important distinction. It’s not speech.
minus-squarepjhenry1216linkfedilink0•1 year agoThe literal lawsuit says otherwise. It’s the first claim they wrote.
minus-squarephillaholiclinkfedilinkEnglish1•1 year agoI have my doubts it’ll succeed on free speech arguments alone.
There are already age limitations that are constitutional. You can’t run for office, buy alcohol, drive a car etc.
That’s not speech. You can age limit things, but not on speech. Beyond that, the limitations on speech have to meet certain conditions where it’s in the publics best interest and doesn’t put too much burden on the public.
Restricting access to explicit material is the same as restricting alcohol or tobacco.
Tobacco is not speech.
Edit: plus one is an economic regulation .The other is not. Like, you can smoke tobacco at really any age. Just can buy it at any age.
Possession is illegal in a majority of states
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-r-0269.htm
You’re still ignoring my first point which is the much more important distinction. It’s not speech.
It’s not a free speech issue.
The literal lawsuit says otherwise. It’s the first claim they wrote.
I have my doubts it’ll succeed on free speech arguments alone.