Register

Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Supreme Court rules in favor of anti-porn law

Thread starter zippy2006
Start date Saturday at 11:51 AM
Tags

age verification paxton porn pornography scotus supreme court

Jump to latest Follow Reply

Sort by date Sort by votes

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

Site Supporter

Monday at 5:39 PM

Monday at 5:39 PM

zippy2006 said:
I think @ThatRobGuy is recycling many of his own arguments from the thread, "Australia Bans Under 16's from Social Media." That case was different insofar as there were no reliable age-verification methods in place, and the court didn't care.

Yes, because they're similar in that the internet is ubiquitous and there's no practical enforcement mechanism to impose age verification solutions/projects on website owners in other countries.

A website that's owned and operated out of the Netherlands can take the Texas's request and put it in the trash can.

Furthermore, in order to give those other countries the means of doing age verification against US residents (even if they wanted to voluntarily comply) it would involve giving foreign entities access to our information.

Gee, you think there are some certain countries out there that would like to be able to get their hooks into our data on the pretenses of "Golly gee shucks, we here in the people's republic of China just need access because we want to comply with Texas's law, we're not going to use it to mine information about US citizens and blackmail people later, pinky swear"

Last edited: Monday at 5:53 PM

Reactions: 2PhiloVoid

•••

Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

Site Supporter

Monday at 5:52 PM

Monday at 5:52 PM

durangodawood said:
Humans are generally reactive about problems. And who can blame them? Its sometimes hard to predict what the problem will be. And people are wary of expending effort without certainty of a return in value.

Perhaps this is one of those times when we simply need to accept the pain and hassle of applying the solution late in the game and see what emerges?

But there's certain problems that one can't retroactively "un-do" or mitigate later once things have reached a "critical mass" so to speak.

It'd be like trying to solve the problem of people speeding in their cars.

We've already made the cars that go well over 65mph
Cars are so ubiquitous that it's impossible to track everyone at once
We've developed tech that alerts people to where the cops are hiding

Now, how do we stop people from going over 65mph?

The answer: Short of some measures that would be a serious invasion of privacy (or downright totalitarian), the best that can be hoped for is limited enforcement where a best case scenario is they catch it 1 out of every 10,000 instances (if they're lucky)

•••

Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

Monday at 6:40 PM

Monday at 6:40 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Yes, because they're similar in that the internet is ubiquitous and there's no practical enforcement mechanism to impose age verification solutions/projects on website owners in other countries.

A website that's owned and operated out of the Netherlands can take the Texas's request and put it in the trash can.

This thread is filling up with claims distinct from any argumentation. This is a good example. Suppose you were writing the opinion instead of Thomas. You write, "A website that's owned and operated out of the Netherlands can take the Texas's request and put it in the trash can." The other justices ask what in the world you take yourself to be arguing. What do you take yourself to be arguing here? That all internet legislation is impossible because "a website that's owned and operated out of the Netherlands can take the Texas's request and put it in the trash can"? That's a pretty weird argument, but even so, what in the world does it have to do with the question of whether free speech has been violated?

Most of these arguments of yours are just variations on, "I like libertarianism!"

ThatRobGuy said:
Gee, you think there are some certain countries out there that would like to be able to get their hooks into our data on the pretenses of "Golly gee shucks, we here in the people's republic of China just need access because we want to comply with Texas's law, we're not going to use it to mine information about US citizens and blackmail people later, pinky swear"

So you think that if we allow the Texas law then we have to distribute personal data to every website that asks for it? Is that your idea? This looks like another very strange strawman.

As with credit cards, if a website asks for personal information but then abuses that information, it is violating the law. So we can do two things at the same time: we can have credit card transactions and we can also uphold a standard for the handling of credit cards. Crazy, isn't it?

•••

Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

Monday at 6:47 PM

Monday at 6:47 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
The answer: Short of some measures that would be a serious invasion of privacy (or downright totalitarian), the best that can be hoped for is limited enforcement where a best case scenario is they catch it 1 out of every 10,000 instances (if they're lucky)

So are you against speed limits, too?

•••

Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

Site Supporter

Monday at 7:01 PM

Monday at 7:01 PM

zippy2006 said:
So are you against speed limits, too?

No, but I'm not so naive as to believe that the majority of drivers on the roads today aren't speeding on a daily basis.

Nor would I sign on for the idea of letting the government record me in my car and every move I'm making 24x7 in the name of getting people to follow the speed limit.

According to the Department of Transportation, only an estimated 0.08% of speeding incidents actually get caught.
(49% of the 182 million daily drivers admit to speeding on a daily or near daily basis -- only 41 million speeding tickets are issued in the US each year)

Last edited: Monday at 7:15 PM

•••

Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

Site Supporter

Monday at 7:06 PM

Monday at 7:06 PM

zippy2006 said:
So you think that if we allow the Texas law then we have to distribute personal data to every website that asks for it? Is that your idea? This looks like another very strange strawman.

As with credit cards, if a website asks for personal information but then abuses that information, it is violating the law. So we can do two things at the same time: we can have credit card transactions and we can also uphold a standard for the handling of credit cards. Crazy, isn't it?

But as I noted, with credit cards, if that website abuses that info, I make a quick phone call to Chase and the matter is resolved.

If some website decided to harvest "who looks what what types of porn" as a means of damaging reputations, the website owner getting punished/fines doesn't un-do the damage.

There's no public "shaming/embarrassment" that can't be undone as a result of someone having their credit card number stolen.

•••

Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

Monday at 7:12 PM

Monday at 7:12 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
No

Why not? Your post makes it sound like you are.

ThatRobGuy said:
But as I noted, with credit cards, if that website abuses that info, I make a quick phone call to Chase and the matter is resolved.

See post #80, where I explain the difference between collecting damages from a credit card company and the law which oversees the handling of sensitive information, such as credit card information. You continue to conflate the two. Note too how ironic it is that one of the very methods in question for the Texas law is credit card verification. So all of the security you attribute to credit cards must also carry over into this law. You can't consistently claim that credit cards are safe but the law is unsafe, given that the law leverages credit cards.

•••

Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

Site Supporter

Monday at 7:27 PM

Monday at 7:27 PM

zippy2006 said:
See post #80, where I explain the difference between collecting damages from a credit card company and the law which oversees the handling of sensitive information, such as credit card information. You continue to conflate the two. Note too how ironic it is that one of the very methods in question for the Texas law is credit card verification. So all of the security you attribute to credit cards must also carry over into this law. You can't consistently claim that credit cards are safe but the law is unsafe, given that the law leverages credit cards.

I saw post 80, yes handling of sensitive data is regulated, we get it.

The point is that if something is personally damaging in terms of someone's sexual proclivities being gathered to use against them, that's not the same as knowing someone's credit card number should a breach occur. (which is highly likely... you mean to tell me that leftist hackers won't dedicate 100% of their time to the effort of finding out what porn republican lawmakers look at as a means of trying to ruin them or damage their reputations?)

If/when a "leak" occurs, there's recourse for the latter and it won't damage someone's reputation permanently.

For example:

Candidate XYZ is running for a office. A company running afoul of data protection laws and letting his credit card number out there isn't going to ruin him. He can get a new credit card number to stop the bleeding, and it's happened to so many people, it's not going to be used as leverage.

"Candidate XYZ was looking at a certain type of porn online" getting published to the masses isn't something there's recourse for. Once people know that information, they know it...you can't unring that bell.

I'm not claiming that credit cards are safe (I've had to cancel several of them due to various store breaches despite being careful -- even the big 3 credit bureaus have been breached)...I'm saying there's recourse for it, and "yeah, a company got breached and someone in Pakistan used my card number" isn't something something that can be used to reputationally ruin someone or use as leverage against them.

And that's really the aim of this Texas law, isn't it? Let's just side step the bovine excrement and call it for what it is... the legislators (under the pretenses of "wanting to protect kids") are wanting to set up a framework in which there's "risk of public embarrassment" associated with doing something they don't like as a means of deterrent.

Some people don't want the potential for a "porn surfing" registry for the same reason as other people don't want a gun registry.

Last edited: Monday at 7:35 PM

•••

Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

Monday at 7:35 PM

Monday at 7:35 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
The point is that if something is personally damaging in terms of someone's sexual proclivities being gathered to use against them, that's not the same as knowing someone's credit card number should a breach occur.

I realize folks are having a hard time following the argument in post #9, but it also applies here. When people engage in untoward behavior they must accept the possibility that they will harm their own reputation. The state doesn't exist to help such people get away scot free. It is not a good argument to say, "Oh, but he was engaging in behavior that is questionable and could harm his reputation, so we have to help him stay anonymous." Again, it is no coincidence that pornography sites are correlated with untrustworthiness and risk.

ThatRobGuy said:
If/when a "leak" occurs, there's recourse for the latter and it won't damage someone's reputation permanently.

Okay, that is a sound counterargument. :oldthumbsup:

:oldthumbsup:

Last edited: Monday at 7:41 PM

•••

Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

Site Supporter

Monday at 7:44 PM

Monday at 7:44 PM

zippy2006 said:
I realize folks are having a hard time following the argument in post #9, but it also applies here. When people engage in untoward behavior they must accept the possibility that they will harm their own reputation. The state doesn't exist to help such people get away scot free. It is not a good argument to say, "Oh, but he was engaging in behavior that is questionable and could harm his reputation, so we have to help him stay anonymous." Again, it is no coincidence that pornography sites are correlated with untrustworthiness and risk.

It's not that people are having a hard time following the argument, it's that the argument is pushing "self serving and self fulfilling prophecy".

You're suggesting that "we all know there's risk" , but the risk is the one that the law is creating.

For instance gun registries (which have been breached and leaked) create risks of homes getting targeted for robbery by criminals who want some free guns -- happened in both Cali and NY.

"Well, you knew there was risk when you made a decision like buying a gun, so this is partly on you" wouldn't be a rationale you'd view as valid would it?. Or would you call them out for artificially creating the risk conditions?

•••

Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

Monday at 7:56 PM

Monday at 7:56 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
You're suggesting that "we all know there's risk" , but the risk is the one that the law is creating.

That's exactly wrong. The whole reason things are prohibited to minors is because they are inherently risky or dangerous in the first place, and both their inherent quality and the prohibition make them especially desirable to certain parties. The same sort of logic applies to black markets.

ThatRobGuy said:
For instance gun registries (which have been breached and leaked) create risks of homes getting targeted for robbery by criminals who want some free guns -- happened in both Cali and NY.

This is entirely different from your argument from reputational harm. On this new argument you are giving, any paper trail for a valuable purchase is dangerous, given that someone may learn that you possess a valuable item. That's a far cry from what you were discussing prior to it.

•••

Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

Site Supporter

Tuesday at 6:55 AM

Tuesday at 6:55 AM

zippy2006 said:
This is entirely different from your argument from reputational harm. On this new argument you are giving, any paper trail for a valuable purchase is dangerous, given that someone may learn that you possess a valuable item. That's a far cry from what you were discussing prior to it.

It's merely meant to highlight that laws creating the risk are different from activities that are inherently risky. (in terms of the magnitude)

zippy2006 said:
That's exactly wrong. The whole reason things are prohibited to minors is because they are inherently risky or dangerous in the first place, and both their inherent quality and the prohibition make them especially desirable to certain parties.

I'll go back to one of my earlier points...which is that the legal framework (if it's going to impose a new risk) needs to demonstrate that it'd actually be effective if you expect adults to embrace a benefit/risk tradeoff.

In this case, it does not.

Evidence? Louisiana already passed a similar measure that took effect in 2023.

The results:
VPN usage spiked by 850% in Louisiana (per analytics data provided by ExpressVPN and NordVPN)
Large spikes in traffic going to foreign-hosted sites that weren't subject to Act 440
Cloudflare Radar indicated only a modest drop in access of those types of sites in the 2 two weeks following the law taking effect, followed by a full rebound.

Everyone is willing to risk some privacy/security in certain instances in aims of addressing a problem, but the measures actually need to be effective at solving a problem for people embrace that dynamic. In this instance, there's no evidence that these kinds of laws actually stop the thing people are claiming they want to stop.

They're basically the "gun free zone sticker in the window" equivalent..

So given that we already know these laws aren't effective at reducing consumption of these materials online (for minors, adults, or otherwise), what's your sales pitch for this policy that will subject people to potential privacy concerns and offer little upside?

Last edited: Tuesday at 7:16 AM

•••

Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Tuesday at 11:04 AM

Tuesday at 11:04 AM

zippy2006 said:
In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Texas law that requires pornography sites to use age-verification in order to prohibit distribution to children (and all minors). The porn companies claimed that this violates the free speech rights of adults by forcing them to verify their age before accessing online pornography. The 6-3 opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas rules that the law does not violate the free speech rights of adults. His reasoning, in short, is that we require adults to verify their age when they buy alcohol, cigarettes, and pornography at brick and mortar stores, so why can't we require adults to verify their age when they access online pornography? As long as there is a compelling interest to prohibit minors, there is a legitimate reason to require age verification.

This is a wonderful and very important ruling from SCOTUS. It not only protects children from pornography, but it also provides legislators with the ability to protect minors from other forms of dangerous online content. Kudos to Thomas and the five justices with good sense.

The underlying issue was which level of protection is/was warranted given this First Amendment case.

In general, First amendment cases enjoy receiving ”strict scrutiny”; the government had better have a darned good reason to restrict (otherwise) protected speech.
But SCOTUS, in this case, opted for intermediate scrutiny, which they ruled, this law survives.

•••

Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

Tuesday at 6:26 PM

Tuesday at 6:26 PM

A good and concise article:

firstthings.com

SCOTUS Takes on Big Porn - First Things

Twenty-one years ago, five black-robed justices ruled that adults’ rights to effortlessly view hardcore pornography trumped children’s rights to a childhood. A boy born that summer is today buying...

firstthings.com

firstthings.com

•••

Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

Tuesday at 6:31 PM

Tuesday at 6:31 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
In this case, it does not.

Evidence? Louisiana already passed a similar measure that took effect in 2023.

The results:
VPN usage spiked by 850% in Louisiana (per analytics data provided by ExpressVPN and NordVPN)
Large spikes in traffic going to foreign-hosted sites that weren't subject to Act 440
Cloudflare Radar indicated only a modest drop in access of those types of sites in the 2 two weeks following the law taking effect, followed by a full rebound.

This is just a bad argument. You aren't even providing data on how much traffic was impeded, which is precisely what the law intended. You've also just ignored all of my other objections to your other bad arguments.

Note that the fact that VPN use increased actually demonstrates that the law is working. If the law were not working then people would not need a VPN. Thus the law disincentivized the illegal activity by increasing the cost associated with it, and some people (we have no idea how many, given your numbers) chose to accept that increased cost for the sake of the activity.

Legislation is always a turn-based game. VPN use obviously needs to be addressed as well, where VPN companies should not assist minors in accessing illegal content.

•••

Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member

CF Ambassadors

Tuesday at 7:26 PM

Tuesday at 7:26 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
But there's certain problems that one can't retroactively "un-do" or mitigate later once things have reached a "critical mass" so to speak.

It'd be like trying to solve the problem of people speeding in their cars.

We've already made the cars that go well over 65mph
Cars are so ubiquitous that it's impossible to track everyone at once
We've developed tech that alerts people to where the cops are hiding

Now, how do we stop people from going over 65mph?

The answer: Short of some measures that would be a serious invasion of privacy (or downright totalitarian), the best that can be hoped for is limited enforcement where a best case scenario is they catch it 1 out of every 10,000 instances (if they're lucky)

Yup, but that's how it is with every law. If we used rhe same arguments that people use regarding this law and applied it to every law, we'd have the same thing. If people really want to steal, they will find a way to do it. So lets not have a law against stealing. If people really want to speed they will (and do) so lets not have a law against speeding. If people really want to .... they will so lets not have a law....

Its all the same. Quite frankly its rhe same argument people have against gun laws. If you really want a gun, you can get one. Yet the left doeant stop trying to want guns outlawed or laws around d gun ownership.

But the idea around laws isnt to prevent everyone from doing something. Because we all know we cant. But we can prevent some, and we can punish those we do catch. Thats the point. To set guidelines and expectations and in the case of kids, to protect them. If it protects some and its not an outright violation of our Constitutional Rights then thats okay. And in this case, SCOTUS has said this law is fine.

Reactions: zippy2006

•••

Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever

Tuesday at 11:03 PM

Tuesday at 11:03 PM

rjs330 said:
Its all the same. Quite frankly its rhe same argument people have against gun laws. If you really want a gun, you can get one. Yet the left doeant stop trying to want guns outlawed or laws around d gun ownership.

Except guns kill people and viewing porn does not. Yet somehow limiting access to porn to “keep kids safe” is applauded, but limiting access to guns to keep kids safe is an unreasonable and offensive thing to ask.

The morality police’s double standards are fun.

•••

Upvote 0

Zceptre

Active Member

Tuesday at 11:08 PM

Tuesday at 11:08 PM

Tropical Wilds said:
Except guns kill people and viewing porn does not.

This is a statement from ignorance.

Trust me when I tell you that it is not an insult that I say this. It's a very dark road that reveals such things.

Porn HAS and DOES kill people!!!

•••

Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever

Yesterday at 5:46 AM

Yesterday at 5:46 AM

Zceptre said:
This is a statement from ignorance.

Trust me when I tell you that it is not an insult that I say this. It's a very dark road that reveals such things.

Porn HAS and DOES kill people!!!

Now that is the real statement from ignorance and bias, lol. Viewing porn does not kill people, and even if it did (which it does not), it’s not to the tune of 46,728 per year. That is a ludicrous thing to claim.

•••

Upvote 0

Desk trauma

The pickles are up to something

Site Supporter

Yesterday at 6:15 AM

Yesterday at 6:15 AM

Tropical Wilds said:
Now that is the real statement from ignorance and bias, lol. Viewing porn does not kill people, and even if it did (which it does not), it’s not to the tune of 46,728 per year. That is a ludicrous thing to claim.

Something something every sperm…

Reactions: Tropical Wilds

•••

Upvote 0

Show hidden low quality content

Similar threads

Supreme Court Protects Minors From Gender Ideology

Replies: 1

Views: 117

OBOB General Politics Forum Jun 19, 2025

RileyG

Supreme Court Protects Minors From Gender Ideology

Replies: 1

Views: 123

One Bread, One Body - Catholic Jun 19, 2025

RileyG

Parents vs. Porn: Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Texas Age-Verification Law

Replies: 3

Views: 453

General Politics Jan 18, 2025

RileyG

T

Supreme Court rules against immigrants in temporary status seeking green cards

Replies: 11

Views: 509

News & Current Events (Articles Required) Dec 16, 2024

Diamond72

Supreme Court turns down porn group’s plea to block Texas age-verification law

Replies: 10

Views: 566

One Bread, One Body - Catholic May 1, 2024

Michie

Share:

Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email Link

Top Bottom

Jump to latest Follow Reply

Jump to latest Follow Reply