Sujet : Re: Right to pr0n overruled
De : plutedpup (at) *nospam* outlook.com (Pluted Pup)
Groupes : rec.arts.tvDate : 16. Jul 2025, 06:30:35
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <wVmdnVspJ4eOpOr1nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/29/25 2:05 PM, danny burstein wrote:
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.
Robert Bork's privacy was violated when a video store publicized
what videos he rented.
Is that what you mean?
Right to pr0n overruled
Re: Right to pr0n overruled