Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: BTR1701 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"" wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: >> Jun 29, 2025 at 8:20:37 AM PDT, moviePig : >>> 6/28/2025 7:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>> BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> Jun 28, 2025 at 2:33:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman : > >>>>>> 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.