1134
Pornhub Sues Texas Over Age Verification Law (www.vice.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
280 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

I don't see how it doesn't violate free speech. Imagine needing the government's permission to talk to someone?

Edit: forgot a word

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago

    I agree. Even internet security protocols are at risk, and the dinosaurs responsible for writing laws don’t understand basic encryption let alone the idea that it is 100% a needed concept in a free, fair, and just society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    There are already age limitations that are constitutional. You can’t run for office, buy alcohol, drive a car etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That's not speech. You can age limit things, but not on speech. Beyond that, the limitations on speech have to meet certain conditions where it's in the publics best interest and doesn't put too much burden on the public.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Restricting access to explicit material is the same as restricting alcohol or tobacco.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Tobacco is not speech.

    Edit: plus one is an economic regulation .The other is not. Like, you can smoke tobacco at really any age. Just can buy it at any age.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Possession is illegal in a majority of states

    https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-r-0269.htm

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You're still ignoring my first point which is the much more important distinction. It's not speech.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    It’s not a free speech issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The literal lawsuit says otherwise. It's the first claim they wrote.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •