Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Right to pr0n overruled
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 17:55:40 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <103scot$1nses$2@dont-email.me>
References: <103pn43$139ah$1@dont-email.me> <103s5vp$1mhnk$1@dont-email.me>
 <103s6pr$1m7q2$3@dont-email.me> <103sb60$1ncbs$2@dont-email.me>
 <103sbig$1npbp$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 23:55:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="816df1dd5094d89e5aa48762632403de";
	logging-data="1831388"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18anDwb3fF3miB0+aZGQgLrYpKVhSJdr/4="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VDqecOM3bje/o6B8Aw7zsa9eXPo=
In-Reply-To: <103sbig$1npbp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/29/2025 5:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2025 at 2:28:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/29/2025 4:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>   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.
>>
>> How can a document be verified en masse?
> 
> It's the age of the mass of customers of a given web site that's at issue. The
> only way to do that in any practical way is ask for an identity document from
> each customer (driver license, ID card, etc.) and those documents don't just
> have a person's age on them. They have a lot of other identifying
> information.

Yes, I get it about the extra info.  But I don't see how a million 
documents can be verified with practical amounts of manpower.


>>>>   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.
>>
>> You misspelled 'Clarabell'.  Especially if that's what he's saying...
> 
> ?!?!

Afacis, only a clown would suggest that a listener in public discourse 
must present credentials.