Exactly. Malicious compliance, while reminding people exactly why they shouldn’t be so quick to give up their anonymity on the internet.
Comment on Pornhub Sues Texas Over Age Verification Law
psychothumbs@lemmy.world 10 months agoIronically it would be so much easier to do that if they actually implemented the law they’re suing over, which demands they record the ID of everyone who uses the site.
qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
WarmSoda@lemm.ee 10 months ago
They’d make themselves exempt without a second thought.
iopq@lemmy.world 10 months ago
How do you expect them to do this… without verifying who they are?
WarmSoda@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I’m not a member of the house or Senate so I don’t know what they can do. But I’m sure they can have as many open doors as they’re like.
iopq@lemmy.world 10 months ago
They would just use a VPN like everyone else
orclev@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Hmm, the article is a little confusing, but it sounds like they’re mostly just complaining about the age verification, not really suing over that specifically. The real sticking point, and the one they actually stand a good chance of winning in court is about the warning they’re being required to display that’s both libelous and factually false. Texas for better or worse is within their rights to require age verification, even the very odious version of it being proposed that would require collecting state IDs, so it’s unlikely that they would actually win if that was their only issue with the law. Fortunately Texas (and others) massively overstepped by trying to slap a health and safety warning a la cigarette packages onto porn sites since they let a bunch of nutty politicians write the text of the message rather than actual medical professionals (probably because they couldn’t find any respectable medical professional that would endorse their wacky notions).
pjhenry1216@kbin.social 10 months ago
Not really. It does kind of tread on the first amendment. Like, imagine I wasn't allowed to say something to you because the government doesn't allow me to. What does that sound like? Like, you can't put barriers on free speech.
Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 10 months ago
This is a stupid take misunderstanding both the 1st amendment and free speech. The government is only prohibited from restricting citizens’ free speech against itself.
But the government regulates all kinds of corporate speech, they’re not allowed to lie, some are mandated to put certain labels and information on their products, many are required to submit financial reports, etc.
Also, there’s plenty of limits on free speech for citizens when applied to other parties: libel, slander, defamation, hate speech, etc.
But you can criticise your government, you can even slander them and have no requirements on being truthful while doing it.
If you don’t understand the rights, you are vulnerable to having them taken away by someone who knows to avoid the specific words you’ve memorised.
pjhenry1216@kbin.social 10 months ago
They restrict speech that violates the rights of others. And much of that is in civil court, not criminal. And a lot more of that is consumer protection in regards to how to legally sell something, not simple speech. You're confusing a lot of things with speech that are absolutely falling under entirely different regulations. And to be clear, the lawsuit does claim both aspects are violating the constitution. It's not just the warning that they're complaining about.
You're misunderstanding in your explanation shows you are less well versed in this aspect than I am.