Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Right to pr0n overruled
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 23:04:29 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <103psdt$1408s$3@dont-email.me>
References: <103pn43$139ah$1@dont-email.me> <103pomr$13h0r$1@dont-email.me> <103ps8m$1408s$2@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 01:04:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c3c4bdda5b54dc9cbe59846f941dfb24";
	logging-data="1179932"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/3uLgjz8nPJBd+kFtJj/NlRd5DgsvsC9g="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8OFiHopISHcnQvhEHD6nH3NZcB8=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> 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.

Forgot the URL

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/anonymous-speech/

>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?