Comment on Pornhub Sues Texas Over Age Verification Law

• orclev@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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).

  source

  • pjhenry1216@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source

    • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

      source

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Exactly. Malicious compliance, while reminding people exactly why they shouldn’t be so quick to give up their anonymity on the internet.

  source
• WarmSoda@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  They’d make themselves exempt without a second thought.

  source

  • iopq@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    How do you expect them to do this… without verifying who they are?

    source

    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

      source

      • iopq@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        They would just use a VPN like everyone else

        source