Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 05:30:59 +0000
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:30:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Right to pr0n overruled
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
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$1@dont-email.me> <103s9q9$fmp$1@reader2.panix.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <103s9q9$fmp$1@reader2.panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <wVmdnVspJ4eOpOr1nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 22
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-2lvXTrSQjNLBwCKTAXJE547ztlOOyr1pdWbsHzq2x4suwO9ok2qOL9/hfMsIkc8SXiV1wuLmX7aG+RM!tPfiwSwtNTuJP5iE4ZBhRpPzDbBcd0CibnGaeFKmQGpvSsaXInGDC9Z9q33HGjT5lfWTuTDFbw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40

On 6/29/25 2:05 PM, danny burstein wrote:
> 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.
> 

Robert Bork's privacy was violated when a video store publicized
what videos he rented.

Is that what you mean?