Re: Right to pr0n overruled

On 6/29/2025 5:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Jun 29, 2025 at 2:28:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 6/29/2025 4:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  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.

>
How can a document be verified en masse?

 It's the age of the mass of customers of a given web site that's at issue. The
only way to do that in any practical way is ask for an identity document from
each customer (driver license, ID card, etc.) and those documents don't just
have a person's age on them. They have a lot of other identifying
information.

Yes, I get it about the extra info.  But I don't see how a million documents can be verified with practical amounts of manpower.

  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.

>
You misspelled 'Clarabell'.  Especially if that's what he's saying...

 ?!?!

Afacis, only a clown would suggest that a listener in public discourse must present credentials.