psychothumbs@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2年前Pornhub Sues Texas Over Age Verification Lawwww.vice.comexternal-linkmessage-square286fedilinkarrow-up11.16Kcross-posted to: technology@lemmy.worldnews@lemmy.worldhackernews@derp.footechnews@radiation.partytechnology@lemmit.online
arrow-up11.16Kexternal-linkPornhub Sues Texas Over Age Verification Lawwww.vice.compsychothumbs@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2年前message-square286fedilinkcross-posted to: technology@lemmy.worldnews@lemmy.worldhackernews@derp.footechnews@radiation.partytechnology@lemmit.online
minus-squarepjhenry1216@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2年前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.
minus-squarephillaholic@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2年前Restricting access to explicit material is the same as restricting alcohol or tobacco.
minus-squarepjhenry1216@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up2·edit-22年前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.
minus-squarephillaholic@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2年前Possession is illegal in a majority of states https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-r-0269.htm
minus-squarepjhenry1216@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2年前You’re still ignoring my first point which is the much more important distinction. It’s not speech.
minus-squarepjhenry1216@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2年前The literal lawsuit says otherwise. It’s the first claim they wrote.
minus-squarephillaholic@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2年前I have my doubts it’ll succeed on free speech arguments alone.
minus-squarepjhenry1216@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2年前I have my doubts that people should comment on things they clearly haven’t read, but here we are.
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.
I have my doubts that people should comment on things they clearly haven’t read, but here we are.