←back to thread

US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

(www.wired.com)
94 points mikece | 1 comments | 27 Jun 25 15:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
ceejayoz ◴[27 Jun 25 16:01 UTC] No.44397838[source]▶
So how broad is this?

Can a state now require you to verify your age and identity to read a newspaper they don't like?

replies(3): >>44397882 #>>44397903 #>>44397939 #
giarc ◴[27 Jun 25 16:10 UTC] No.44397939[source]▶
Not unless that newspaper is "more than one-third sexual material".
replies(9): >>44397951 #>>44397995 #>>44398006 #>>44398008 #>>44398035 #>>44398053 #>>44398103 #>>44398383 #>>44399422 #
hedora ◴[27 Jun 25 16:19 UTC] No.44398035[source]▶
The archive link shared by heythere22 (which seems to be a different story) discusses this.

The published plan from the heritage foundation includes a few more steps: (1) redefine obscenity to include pornography, effectively banning it via interstate commerce laws (2) extend this to anything that could “be harmful to minors”, which will certainly include information about groups they don’t like, starting with LGBTQ+.

replies(3): >>44398131 #>>44398246 #>>44400560 #
1. spondylosaurus ◴[27 Jun 25 16:30 UTC] No.44398131[source]▶
Considering another of today's rulings came down in favor of religious opt-outs for kids in public schools, and that that case came out specifically because parents didn't want their kids exposed to books with LGBTQ characters in them, then yeah—I'd say we're scarily close to redefining an entire class of people's existence as obscene.

(Never mind the fact that other recent anti-LGBTQ rulings and policies have heavily implied as much, but I don't think they've been quite so explicit. Yet.)

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/27/nx-s1-5430355/scotus-opt-out-...