U.S. News

2258 readers

27 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.

Guidelines for submissions:

Post the original source of information as the link.
If there is any Nazi imagery in the linked story, mark your post NSFW.
If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
Social media is not a news source.

For World News, see the News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Supreme Court will hear Texas anti-pornography law that challengers say violates free-speech rights (apnews.com)

submitted 23 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A Texas anti-pornography law is going before the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a collision of free speech rights, regulation of online content and the protection of children.

Texas is among more than a dozen states with similar laws aimed at blocking young children and teenagers from viewing pornography. The adult-content site Pornhub has stopped operating altogether in several of those states, citing the technical and privacy hurdles in complying with the laws.

Texas says its measure is necessary to protect children from the current near-instantaneous access to porn, including hardcore obscene material, on smartphones. "Texas seeks to protect kids from some of the most prurient sexual content imaginable," state attorneys wrote in court documents.

The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, says the Texas law wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online, making it vulnerable to hacking or tracking.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I really doubt it's for the "protection of children".

[–] [email protected] 8 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Never is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago

This

Any law anywhere about "protecting children" is usually a trojan for something messed up