this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
332 points (99.4% liked)

News

23850 readers
3699 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Supreme Court's hearing of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton signals potential limits on First Amendment protections for online pornography.

The case involves a Texas law mandating age verification for websites with "sexual material harmful to minors," challenging the 2004 Ashcroft v. ACLU precedent, which struck down similar laws under strict scrutiny.

Justices, citing the inadequacy of modern filtering tools, seemed inclined to weaken free speech protections, exploring standards like intermediate scrutiny.

The ruling could reshape online speech regulations, leaving adults’ access to sexual content uncertain while tightening restrictions for minors.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 minutes ago

Noooo haha we we can't fix your real problems that you want us to fix because of how we think some witch hunter in the 1600s relates to the constitution, and politics is just hard and moves slow :(

Anyway, here, we shitcanned the constitution for something pretty much nobody asked for and won't actually fix anything. Enjoy <3

[–] [email protected] 36 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

You gotta be a really profoundly uncomfortable, nervous human being to think of sex as bad.

What an absolute sign of weakness.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 hours ago

Or, and hear me out on this one, you're a member of a group, like various other groups, that want to control every aspect of human lives, including sex, to bind them to our little group forever so we can control them even more?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 19 minutes ago)

You gotta be a really profoundly uncomfortable, nervous human being

That's an interesting way to say "religious".

Project2025 and it's evangelical backers are a major driver of this prudishness.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Kids are gonna start finding porn the old-fashioned way: randomly coming across discarded magazines at the park. That was my first experience.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 minutes ago

Good luck finding a magazine anywhere any more. I assume they can still find it online from random small websites, like in the old days.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 hours ago

Or torrents... It would be funny if this just ended up teaching new generations how to torrent.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 hours ago

I think Epstein highlighted that there is a much bigger problem going on than some 15 year old looking up “mum gets railed by football team”.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

If we're banning content harmful to children why dont we start with Capitalist propoganda and religious indoctrination :3

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

And those brain washing shows on YouTube

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago

Both are accurate

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

Ideally you wouldn't be using tor for clearweb sites but if you must I suppose that's an option, a VPN would be less detrimental to the tor network though, and is often both faster and more reliable from a user perspective.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 46 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The vague threat of "think of the children maybe being exposed to sexual things" challenging our first amendment right but it becomes some huge debate if a woman is being harassed/stalked/threatened online.

**they are justififying destroying our rights for their feelings **

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 hours ago

they are justififying destroying our rights for their feelings

Well yeah, the P stands for Projection in the party of "facts don't care about your feelings."

[–] [email protected] 73 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

So we can ban content that is claimed to be harmful to minors but not weapons that actually kill children...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 hours ago

Jfc when you put it that way

[–] [email protected] 27 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Even in terms of speech, it's ridiculous to claim that boobs are more harmful than a social media diet of assholes claiming women or racial minorities aren't people.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 17 hours ago

Close your eyes for just a moment and imagine the scales of Justice.

Imagine white kids on one side and brown kids on the other.

Why aren't the scales balanced?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 128 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Notice how we're already asking past the sale with the tacit labeling of "sexual material harmful to minors," with the presupposed declaration that sexual material is automatically harmful to minors.

The all-consuming mission to look at boobies is essentially universal for all pubescent boys from about 12 all the way to the age of majority. This is well known, and none of us came off any the worse despite widespread availability of older brothers' back issues of Hustler, Usenet, dial-up BBS systems, and ultimately the world wide web.

If teens weren't naturally interested in sex where wouldn't been all them teenage pregnancies. Q.E.D.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 20 hours ago

This is an excellent observation.

We now no longer have the debate over whether or not this content is necessarily harmful to minors. It's now automatically bad, and the new framing is: shouldn't we ban bad things?

Should expect more of this kind of newspeak/doublespeak as the Trump years continue.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Just saying, the shit you can find on the Internet does not come even close to what Hustler was. There is instant access to all kinds of weird and fucked fetish shit that just wasn't accessible in the 90s and earlier.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 20 hours ago

Bizarre fetish shit was very much available in the 90s and earlier. It just wasn't in hustler or playboy.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

There's a vid on archive.org of the Spice Channel that must have been off someone's VHS tape. It flickers a lot and is barely watchable, but I was curious what we were all missing back then.

Turns out, way more softcore than I was expecting. Slightly more hardcore than Skinamax at the time, but not by much.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 17 hours ago

Free speech for pornographers, but instant IP/device ID ban if you criticise Israel online.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 21 hours ago

Get ready for the slippery slope. Anything conservatives don’t want you to see or read will be placed behind an “identify yourself” firewall.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

It’s just the first amendment.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Freedom of speech is so important it is literally the first thing they remembered to add in.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 22 hours ago (8 children)

They didn’t even mention individuals having the rights to own guns, but god damn they had to add that one to the second amendment through the courts.

[–] Zink 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It does mention “the people” though.

I’ve always have trouble with this one. The second amendment is a big problem in this country, especially combined with our hatful culture. DC v Heller should have gone the other way because it would have saved lives and allowed some progress.

But when I read the amendment, to me it comes across very much like “the people have the right to guns so that the militia can be called to arms” and not just “the militia gets guns.”

The amendment is outdated and the framers could never have anticipated our current state, much less been in favor of it. Maybe they even misspoke and did only mean for the militia members to be able to keep their guns at home. But what they wrote sure reads to me like the conservatives want it to, at least as far as the individual right to own guns.

This is just an academic discussion anyway. These weapons are part of the personal identity of at least tens of millions of Americans, plus we have a fully Republican government incoming, plus the court that would have to do something about it is even more conservative and corrupt than before.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 28 minutes ago

Just gonna say I’m fine with people owning guns. I just think the courts have interpreted the amendment very generously. More so than any other amendment by far.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 16 hours ago

"A well regulated militia"

Back then that meant a gun group with regular training, any civillian in the militia could also own guns for private use

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 23 hours ago (5 children)

Define "sexual material." What about the minors who get sexual gratification from Linux installation media repository mirrors?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
sudo apt-get install boobies
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

sparky is not in sudoers file. This incident will be reported

[–] [email protected] 35 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

I'm not a minor but WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT MY KINK?!

[–] [email protected] 22 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

You can sudo mount and fork my box anytime....

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

To quote a former Supreme Court justice and asshole, "I know it when I see it."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

What's taught in schools: the parents should have a say! Don't let the government decide what to teach our kids!

Books in libraries and content on the internet: the government must step in and make certain content illegal!

Of course, fascists don't care if they're hypocritical. They say whatever gives them the most power in any situation, so calling out hypocrisy won't stop them. It's still good to do, though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 22 hours ago

some republicants cheering for the scotus ruling today will be scrambling to try to legislate around it tomorrow.. because their porn habits will get hacked and released.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 22 hours ago

Constitution smonchstitution. We don’t need rights where we’re going.

Buckle up!

load more comments
view more: next ›