←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: 0.205s | 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 #
vel0city ◴[27 Jun 25 16:08 UTC] No.44397903[source]▶
Let me start off saying I'm not a fan of this law. I don't think these requirements are workable with current technology, and I don't necessarily agree with the goals or that the goals are worth the side effects of the regulations.

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

Most states have laws in place that regulate the sale and distribution of pornography and other "obscene" materials. This has been true for a long, long time. So yes, states have had the ability to require you to show ID to get a "newspaper" they don't like, assuming that newspaper is actually just pornography/obscenity. I don't think most people would argue Pornhub are news sites though.

replies(1): >>44398050 #
brianbest101 ◴[27 Jun 25 16:22 UTC] No.44398050[source]▶
But what counts as obscene is not well defined. Forget newspapers you could have to age gate Wikipedia
replies(3): >>44398129 #>>44398141 #>>44398158 #
SpicyLemonZest ◴[27 Jun 25 16:33 UTC] No.44398158[source]▶
I'm just very skeptical of the argument that, when we see a fuzzy line, we have to erase it entirely so that nobody can abuse the fuzziness.
replies(1): >>44402076 #
Dracophoenix ◴[28 Jun 25 03:12 UTC] No.44402076[source]▶
Why shouldn't we? A law that isn't well-defined in no law in the proper sense. Ambiguity and overbreath will just be weaponized against people and organizations the government doesn't like just like the Department of Education has done with Title VI in its crusade against a nebulously defined "anti-Semitism".
replies(1): >>44405127 #
1. SpicyLemonZest ◴[28 Jun 25 14:56 UTC] No.44405127[source]▶
Since you bring up anti-discrimination law, I would point to the concept of “hostile work environment” as a good example. It’s fuzzy and ultimately subjective to draw the line where crude jokes become so offensive and so pervasive that they constitute harassment. But if you refused to draw any line, you’d end up with a lot of workplaces where women aren’t in practice welcome.