Sujet : Re: Right to pr0n overruled
De : dannyb (at) *nospam* panix.com (danny burstein)
Groupes : rec.arts.tvDate : 29. Jun 2025, 22:05:14
Autres entêtes
Organisation : PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID : <103s9q9$fmp$1@reader2.panix.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : nn/6.7.3
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.
-- _____________________________________________________Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Right to pr0n overruled
Re: Right to pr0n overruled