Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.panix3.panix.com!dannyb
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Right to pr0n overruled
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 21:05:14 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <103s9q9$fmp$1@reader2.panix.com>
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>
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 21:05:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="panix3.panix.com:166.84.1.3";
	logging-data="16089"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
User-Agent: nn/6.7.3

In <103s5vp$1mhnk$1@dont-email.me> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:

[snip]
>>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?

and let's ask Robert Bork, too.

-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]