Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Right to pr0n overruled
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 20:13:48 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <103s6pr$1m7q2$3@dont-email.me>
References: <103pn43$139ah$1@dont-email.me> <103ps8m$1408s$2@dont-email.me> <103rlk5$1irtt$2@dont-email.me> <103s45l$1m7q2$2@dont-email.me> <103s5vp$1mhnk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 22:13:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="40c9946eba1ed4bac3d05f783ef9e46f";
	logging-data="1777474"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19l2XXhl08WyW/9n55U2WKG"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YHR7YXTBxF3cc0n11cretDF2YNo=

On Jun 29, 2025 at 12:59:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> Jun 29, 2025 at 8:20:37 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>:
>>> 6/28/2025 7:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman 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,
> 
>>>> 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?
> 
>>> Because, unless specified to the nearest microsecond, age doesn't 
>>> usefully identify an individual.
> 
>> Yes, but the only practical way to verify people's age en masse is to
>> require them to provide an identity document, which typically provides
>> more info than just the person's age.
> 
> So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling
> seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment
> protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First
> Amendment protect anonymity here?

Clarence isn't saying the 'speakers' can't 'speak' anonymously. It's their
audience that has no right to anonymity.