Score one for Pornhub: A federal judge ruled Thursday that a Texas law requiring pornography sites to institute age-verification measures — and add prominent warning labels about the alleged …

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/4221949

Court Rules in Pornhub’s Favor in Finding Texas Age-Verification Law Violates First Amendment::A Texas law requiring age-verification measures for porn sites, challenged by Pornhub and others, violates the First Amendment, a judge ruled.

  • SCB@lemmy.world
    132·
    1 year ago

    Define “kids”

    Define “pornography”

    I’m not being pedantic - this is one of the reasons the law was struck down.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        61·
        1 year ago

        From my post explaining the judgment in non-legalese above

        4: “sweep” of law (that is, who it is designed to protect) is unclear due to widely varying harm between different levels of minors. For instance, sites that offer Sex Ed to older teens would also be impacted

        • Strangle@lemmy.worldEnglish
          112·
          1 year ago

          I’m just trying to make sure you guys agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography.

          Some fucking retard is asking me to define ‘kids’ and ‘pornography’

          Everyone immediately downvoting my comment of ‘you guys don’t think kids should be exposed to pornography, right?’

          I think this is an important distinction. We need to start there and then we can move forward and find ways to protect them from it.

          But it makes sense to make sure we are starting from the same place.

          The dude asking about what kids and pornography means is probably a fucking creep

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            112·
            1 year ago

            That “fucking retard” is also me, and as I added to the comment, that specific difference is part of the judgment.

            People are downvoting you for the same reason they disapprove of the law - your comment seems disingenuous.

            Ways to protect children already exist, and are more effective, as the judgment also found.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                122·
                1 year ago

                This is a solvable problem. You can just not log in.

                Not sure why you hate people for explaining a judgment to you that you clearly did not read.

                • Strangle@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  13·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve been thinking about it pretty hard over the past couple days.

                  There is nothing for me here, why would I bother keeping this app on my phone?

                  I hate lemmy users because of how stupid they are and how far left they lie thinking is. ‘Explaining’ a judgment to me doesn’t answer the question of “but we still don’t want kids exposed to porn, right guys?”

                  And the reactions I’ve gotten even asking that question really makes me read between the lines on this. Your answer of ‘well define kids and porno’ really really make me read between the lines.

                  Should be a pretty easy thing for everyone here to agree on, but it’s been a visceral reaction to dodge the question and downvote the idea, even.

                  That tells me all I really need to know.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    122·
                    1 year ago

                    I find it odd that you suggest that I am somehow stupid, and you smart, when I was able to read and parse the ruling and you were not.

                    I also explained to you why that question you asked seems disingenuous, including referencing the judgment.

                    This law was not about preventing children from seeing pornography. It was about effectively banning pornography on the state. Same reason voter ID isn’t about limiting voter fraud, but about putting hurdles in the way of people who would otherwise vote against the party that supports voter ID.

                    Only one of us is being stupid here, and it isn’t the person that is here explaining the judgment.

                  • propaganja@lemmy.world
                    4·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not sure you’re really trying to understand the problem here. Why do you think people don’t want to answer the question?

                    It’s a simple question with an obvious answer. The real question is, why would you ask that? You’re not just looking for a, “Yes.” The obvious suspicion is that it’s a leading question, and you’ll use it to try and coerce a subsequent point. It doesn’t matter if you’re genuinely not trying to do that. It’s upon you to recognize how your own question may be perceived.

                    The reason the guy replied, “define kids, etc” was because he was already anticipating that this isn’t the real answer you’re looking for. I can say with considerable confidence that the vast majority of people here will understand this.

                    I agree that kids should not be exposed to porn.

          • Hyperreality@kbin.social
            2·
            1 year ago

            “When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.”

            Ezekiel 23:18-21

            “So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.”

            Genesis 19:35

            Prostitution, horse sized dicks, breast fondling, incest and rape.

            Should Americans under the age of 18 be banned from reading the bible because it is arguably pornographic?

            Or is it important that we define what constitutes pornography and what constitutes a child, so that banning the bible isn’t possible?

            And don’t think this is me simply being funny. The bible has been been banned in some schools and for some ages, thanks to these kinds of overly broad and poorly written laws.