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.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    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.

    • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 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

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        51 minutes ago

        My point is that the courts have been taking the most generous possible interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

        An individual is not a militia, yet every citizen can own a gun based on the generous interpretation of the courts. Even if you aren’t in a well organized militia.

        Open carry? They read the 2nd amendment and thought it said individuals should be allowed to open carry for any reason at all.

        These are generous interpretations of the second amendment. But for the first amendment, the courts are much more eager to limit rights.

      • Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Can you explain your position? Honest question, because if I just take your post “Militias are armed citizens” I can use logic to know that to be false. Militia can be comprised of armed citizens, but armed citizens are not militia…

        A log cabin is made of logs, but a log isnt a cabin?

        • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Can you explain your position?

          Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary’ - Karl Marx

          • Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            I had no idea Karl Marx was an author of the constitution of the United States! Wow! Thanks!