Court Rules in Pornhub’s Favor in Finding Texas Age-Verification Law Violates First Amendment::A Texas law requiring age-verification measures for porn sites, challenged by Pornhub and others, violates the First Amendment, a judge ruled.

  • BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    220
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You can sit back and wonder why the fuck we’re still dealing with these petty garbage laws, or… realize the horror at how much taxpayer money is used to write them up, bicker and decide over them and waste time and resources in our legal system.

    Every one of these right-wing, trash laws is a black hole of bullshit, sucking money from our economy, going nowhere, meant to do nothing but point and make a statement they don’t even expect to pass.

    Fuck all of it. You only get to choose to be against them, you can’t choose whether your money was used to poop them into existence.

        • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would just be interested to hear if these fucks—er folks— are interested in proving their own virtue, or if its really as banal and simple as always trying to consolidate further control. You’d think they would learn after that piece some outlet did where they “bought” ad data for Washington DC and powerful internet users’ “interests”/ad profile data.

  • FiftyShadesOfLatte@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is good news for all those GOP politicians frequenting these sites who also don’t want their identities leaked.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the annoying part. I would suggest an alternative: everyone who voted for this law is opt-in to a private market version (some kind of registry) that is legal and they will be monitored for compliance. Kind of like that CovenantKeeper thing Wired reported on.

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Do you want porn, or do you want to create more closet pedophiles like half the Catholic clergy?

    You can either tolerate human nature, which includes sexuality, sorry, or you can suppress it and break people to their cores, causing harm to them and eventually others including children.

    Why is it, when we try to suppress parts of our nature through law, it’s always lust and never the far more destructive greed? Lust can be positive and celebratory, greed has no redeeming qualities.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s all puritan shit, plain and simple. Religious folks think the world’s problems would be solved if everyone would just follow their dogma, and everything will be hunky dory. Humans have been fighting about this since the invention of religion.

    • imgonnatrythis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey, it’s not always greed that we give a pass! In the US we are also fantastically lenient with violence as well!

  • sudo22@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    As shit as this law was to ever be put to pen and paper (figuratively), silver lining is it getting struck down sets a great precedence that’ll help the fight in other States that have passed similar laws.

    • ALQ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      With the porn industry, even if you’re on top you’re still getting fucked.

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Only banking companies who handle monetary transactions with the sites can exert power. E.g they were the ones who basically required users on PH to be verified to post videos because of issues of traffiking and illegal videos being uploaded.

    • Buffalobuffalo@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      From the article

      At least five other states have enacted similar age-verification laws aimed at blocking access to pornography sites: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah and Virginia. Pornhub, for one, after complying with the Louisiana law, subsequently opted to block access to users the other four states.

      So only one of 6 have been overturned. And the others have existed longer. 

      • jubalvoid@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        In fairness there was no confrontation in those states. Texas likely got the bonk because of requiring the disclaimer being a bridge too far, but the ruling explicitly blocks the age verification portion as well so it could be used as precedent against the other states now.

    • x86x87@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Depends. Cowgirl and reverse cowgirl for example are on top if you want to fuck with the porn industry

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are no other tops when it comes to pissing off the BigPorn. Everyone’s BigPorn’s bottom, and they don’t have lube in the budget.

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pornhub is complying with the Louisiana law. In Louisiana, the state has digitized IDs that make veryifying your age online for this law very convenient.

      In the other states, they are using this law to effectively outlaw pornography. For everyone. Especially the Texas law.

    • aircooledJenkins@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Got hit with this stupid thing in Montana this week. I had no idea the assholes in Helena had passed such a thing here.

  • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if the judge had to retire to chambers to “deliberate” or if it was summary judgement, lol. Just asking questions.

  • comfortablyglum@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can someone please explain to me how the first amendment argument is valid here? I read the article, and I still don’t get it.

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Basically Texas is making it difficult to use your ID to prove you are of legal age to view pornography. Other states are doing this too. Louisiana, however, has made it very easy to use your ID to prove you can legally view pornography - which is why their law is being complied with and not being sued to overturn.

    • TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The actual document pretty much says the federal decision on decency is established in the first amendment category as an already established precedent and whatever the inept republicans were trying wasn’t remotely good enough to challenge it.

      “V. CONCLUSION At the core of Defendant’s argument is the suggestion that H.B. 1181 is constitutional if the Supreme Court changes its precedent on obscenity. Defendant may certainly attempt a challenge to Miller and Reno at the Supreme Court. But it cannot argue that it is likely to succeed on the merits as they currently stand based upon the mere possibility of a change in precedent. Nor can Defendant argue that the status quo is maintained at the district court level by disregarding Supreme Court precedent. The status quo has been—and still is today—that content filtering is a narrower alternative than age verification. Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. at 667. The Court agrees that the state has a legitimate goal in protecting children from sexually explicit material online. But that goal, however crucial, does not negate this Court’s burden to ensure that the laws passed in its pursuit comport with established First Amendment doctrine. There are viable and constitutional means to achieve Texas’s goal, and nothing in this order prevents the state from pursuing those means. See ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Pa. 2007), aff’d, 534 F.3d 181. (“I may not turn a blind eye to the law in order to attempt to satisfy my urge to protect this nation’s youth by upholding a flawed statute, especially when a more effective and less restrictive alternative is readily available[.]”). Because the Court finds that H.B. 1181 violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, it will GRANT Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, (Dkt. # 5), as to their First Amendment claims and GRANT the motion in part and DENY the motion in part as to their Section 230 claims. Defendant Angela Colmenero, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Texas, is preliminarily ENJOINED from enforcing any provision of H.B. 1181.”