this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
197 points (99.0% liked)

News

23837 readers
3290 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Supreme Court's hearing of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton signals potential limits on First Amendment protections for online pornography.

The case involves a Texas law mandating age verification for websites with "sexual material harmful to minors," challenging the 2004 Ashcroft v. ACLU precedent, which struck down similar laws under strict scrutiny.

Justices, citing the inadequacy of modern filtering tools, seemed inclined to weaken free speech protections, exploring standards like intermediate scrutiny.

The ruling could reshape online speech regulations, leaving adults’ access to sexual content uncertain while tightening restrictions for minors.

all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

If we're banning content harmful to children why dont we start with Capitalist propoganda and religious indoctrination :3

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 hours ago

The vague threat of "think of the children maybe being exposed to sexual things" challenging our first amendment right but it becomes some huge debate if a woman is being harassed/stalked/threatened online.

**they are justififying destroying our rights for their feelings **

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 hours ago

Free speech for pornographers, but instant IP/device ID ban if you criticise Israel online.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

So we can ban content that is claimed to be harmful to minors but not weapons that actually kill children...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Even in terms of speech, it's ridiculous to claim that boobs are more harmful than a social media diet of assholes claiming women or racial minorities aren't people.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 hours ago

Well yeah it's never really been about what they say it is

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago

Close your eyes for just a moment and imagine the scales of Justice.

Imagine white kids on one side and brown kids on the other.

Why aren't the scales balanced?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

Might as well just turn off the internet if they are this concerned about harmful content.

[–] mindbleach 2 points 3 hours ago

I don't care if kids see porn. They shouldn't. But it's simply not a big deal.

If that's the worst thing we're talking about, versus rampant censorship and tracking, it's not even a question.

[–] [email protected] 91 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Notice how we're already asking past the sale with the tacit labeling of "sexual material harmful to minors," with the presupposed declaration that sexual material is automatically harmful to minors.

The all-consuming mission to look at boobies is essentially universal for all pubescent boys from about 12 all the way to the age of majority. This is well known, and none of us came off any the worse despite widespread availability of older brothers' back issues of Hustler, Usenet, dial-up BBS systems, and ultimately the world wide web.

If teens weren't naturally interested in sex where wouldn't been all them teenage pregnancies. Q.E.D.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 hours ago

This is an excellent observation.

We now no longer have the debate over whether or not this content is necessarily harmful to minors. It's now automatically bad, and the new framing is: shouldn't we ban bad things?

Should expect more of this kind of newspeak/doublespeak as the Trump years continue.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Just saying, the shit you can find on the Internet does not come even close to what Hustler was. There is instant access to all kinds of weird and fucked fetish shit that just wasn't accessible in the 90s and earlier.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 hours ago

Bizarre fetish shit was very much available in the 90s and earlier. It just wasn't in hustler or playboy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

There's a vid on archive.org of the Spice Channel that must have been off someone's VHS tape. It flickers a lot and is barely watchable, but I was curious what we were all missing back then.

Turns out, way more softcore than I was expecting. Slightly more hardcore than Skinamax at the time, but not by much.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago

How else they going to keep up viewership if you aren't edging for hours?

[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 hours ago

Get ready for the slippery slope. Anything conservatives don’t want you to see or read will be placed behind an “identify yourself” firewall.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Define "sexual material." What about the minors who get sexual gratification from Linux installation media repository mirrors?

[–] [email protected] 34 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I'm not a minor but WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT MY KINK?!

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

You can sudo mount and fork my box anytime....

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Can I watch through my dirty unwashed windows?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 hours ago

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 hours ago

There’s an entire fediverse dedicated to it. It’s called Lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

To quote a former Supreme Court justice and asshole, "I know it when I see it."

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 hours ago

Seems a bit redundant there.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Soon *nix will be the only legal fetish. Until they get to it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

They'll probrally say "nooo those programming socks and skirts are indecent, banned"

[–] [email protected] 57 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

It’s just the first amendment.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Freedom of speech is so important it is literally the first thing they remembered to add in.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

They didn’t even mention individuals having the rights to own guns, but god damn they had to add that one to the second amendment through the courts.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

"A well regulated militia"

Back then that meant a gun group with regular training, any civillian in the militia could also own guns for private use

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Militias are armed citizens...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Can you explain your position? Honest question, because if I just take your post "Militias are armed citizens" I can use logic to know that to be false. Militia can be comprised of armed citizens, but armed citizens are not militia....

A log cabin is made of logs, but a log isnt a cabin?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Can you explain your position?

'Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary' - Karl Marx

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

I had no idea Karl Marx was an author of the constitution of the United States! Wow! Thanks!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 hours ago

I mean we've got plenty of others.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

What's taught in schools: the parents should have a say! Don't let the government decide what to teach our kids!

Books in libraries and content on the internet: the government must step in and make certain content illegal!

Of course, fascists don't care if they're hypocritical. They say whatever gives them the most power in any situation, so calling out hypocrisy won't stop them. It's still good to do, though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 hours ago

Don’t let the government ~~decide what to~~ teach our kids!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 hours ago

Constitution smonchstitution. We don’t need rights where we’re going.

Buckle up!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 hours ago

some republicants cheering for the scotus ruling today will be scrambling to try to legislate around it tomorrow.. because their porn habits will get hacked and released.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Soon they'll make sexual partners register with the state or straight up make premarital sex illegal. And anyone found breaking the law (i.e. women getting pregnant) will go to jail.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

… will go to jail and be forced to carry the pregnancy to term, be billed for delivery services, and raise the kid on her own. Nothing screams “stable childhood” like the government forcing your kid on you as punishment for getting pregnant.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago

And then soon after CPS will be called and they'll take away the kid and I don't even want to think about where they'll send them.