←back to thread

US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

(www.wired.com)
94 points mikece | 10 comments | 27 Jun 25 15:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.358s | source | bottom
Show context
silverquiet ◴[27 Jun 25 16:19 UTC] No.44398028[source]▶
I'm a Texan and can't say I'm particularly a fan of the state politics or the current US Supreme Court, but at the same time, I can't say that this law particularly bothers me. I don't have children, and so I don't know if I can really understand what parents are dealing with in trying to ensure that their children are kept away from undesirable material, but it does seem rather difficult; I certainly don't envy them.
replies(6): >>44398073 #>>44398125 #>>44398147 #>>44398325 #>>44399340 #>>44401581 #
linotype ◴[27 Jun 25 16:24 UTC] No.44398073[source]▶
This is just the beginning.

Edit: really confused as to why this simple statement is flagged

replies(4): >>44398133 #>>44398144 #>>44398289 #>>44398553 #
1. superfrank ◴[27 Jun 25 16:30 UTC] No.44398133[source]▶
"...and if we let gay people get married soon people will be marrying their dogs!"

I do think there are legitimate reasons to not like the bill, but what you said is classic slippery slope

replies(3): >>44398151 #>>44398165 #>>44398256 #
2. linotype ◴[27 Jun 25 16:32 UTC] No.44398151[source]▶
That’s an insane leap of what I said. Like the opposite of what I said. Legalizing gay marriage is giving people more rights, not restricting them like what the court is doing here.
3. cchance ◴[27 Jun 25 16:33 UTC] No.44398165[source]▶
Because .... ITS A SLIPPERY SLOPE, that the republicans in charge and religious right wing have shown they are perfectly OK with pushing for, shit its funny how project 2025 is like 60% implemented and people are still acting like its all some conspiracy and this weird religious right wing shit isnt actually happening
replies(1): >>44398334 #
4. reverendsteveii ◴[27 Jun 25 16:45 UTC] No.44398256[source]▶
One difference is that there are absolutely no people involved with the current political power structure who are openly saying their end goal is to marry dogs.

"“Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”

--Project 2025

5. superfrank ◴[27 Jun 25 16:55 UTC] No.44398334[source]▶
"IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE! First we gave women rights, then black people rights, and now we're trying to give trans people rights and rights to illegal immigrants!"

To be clear, I support all of those things, but the point I'm making is that saying it's a slippery slope is a bad argument because A) the next steps are often based on opinion and not fact and B) what one person sees as a slippery slope another person sees as progress and growth.

I'm not arguing in favor of this Texas bill (I have pretty mixed feelings about it honestly). I'm just saying the argument the first person made is a bad argument.

replies(4): >>44398378 #>>44398992 #>>44399357 #>>44401531 #
6. linotype ◴[27 Jun 25 17:01 UTC] No.44398378{3}[source]▶
We’re already sliding down the slippery slope. Claiming I’m arguing in bad faith is just helping the people that are pushing us down it. A slippery slope isn’t a bad thing if it involves people getting more rights.

I also think it’s somewhat ironic that my simple statement that started this conversation has been flagged. Free speech really is done in the US.

7. hooverd ◴[27 Jun 25 18:16 UTC] No.44398992{3}[source]▶
sometimes you can clearly see the slope being greased
8. DrillShopper ◴[27 Jun 25 19:02 UTC] No.44399357{3}[source]▶
If you're not arguing for it, stop being an apologist for it.
replies(1): >>44399457 #
9. superfrank ◴[27 Jun 25 19:16 UTC] No.44399457{4}[source]▶
Why? Pointing out a flawed argument isn't the same as supporting an idea.
10. heavyset_go ◴[28 Jun 25 00:45 UTC] No.44401531{3}[source]▶
We are living through a real life example of the fallacy fallacy: the fallacy that because an argument contains a logical fallacy, that does not mean it is not true.