Re: Right to pr0n overruled

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.

 
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.