Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not unless that newspaper is "more than one-third sexual material".
What counts as sexual material?
Pretty much all courts in the US would use the Miller test to determine if material is obscene or not.
US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law
41–50 of 229 posts
Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conservatives claim to hate Chinese-style internet censorship, but in practice they want to build a Great Firewall of Texas.
> Conservatives claim to hate Chinese-style internet censorship What they hate about Chinese internet censorship isn't the scope and pervasiveness, it’s who specifically controls it and what specific decisions are made.
I think all 3 of these things are valid concerns.
Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law
#43[flagged]
> the European playbook
Reference?
Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law
#44[flagged]
You will need to upload your ID to post on social media. Bills like that have already been introduced. Lawmakers have already said this is their intention.
We are going to "think of the children" ourselves into needing to give every site our ID, or more, just to use the internet.
Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
But what counts as obscene is not well defined. Forget newspapers you could have to age gate Wikipedia
What counts as obscene has been defined for a while. And I don't think Wikipedia would count as obscene by the Miller test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
. Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Clearly the whole of Wikipedia is not trying to appeal to purient interests of the average person. I don't think much of the content of Wikipedia is describing sexual content in a patently offensive way, and I'd argue it has serious political and scientific value.
Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law
#46[flagged]
> the European playbook Reference?
Read the article, it outlines European countries that already implemented something similar.
Edit: if you don’t agree, at least comment why I’m wrong AND downvote.
> In April, chat app Discord announced it is testing face scans in the UK and Australia. Regulators in Germany have been pursuing age checks—going as far as to fine individuals posting on X (then Twitter) in 2023—for years. Last week, Pornhub returned to France—it pulled services relating to the country’s age checking at the start of June—after a court ruling limited the law. And by July this year, porn sites and social media platforms operating in the UK are required to introduce “robust” age checks. Pornhub owner Aylo announced on Thursday that it would adopt "government approved age assurance methods” to comply with the law.
Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not unless that newspaper is "more than one-third sexual material".
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+…
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-...
Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law
#48[flagged]
This is just the beginning. Edit: really confused as to why this simple statement is flagged
"...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
Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law
#49So just produce three-fourths AI-generated non-adult irrelevant material, and segregate it enough to not harm regular user activity. Got it.
Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
But what counts as obscene is not well defined. Forget newspapers you could have to age gate Wikipedia
I understand the point you're trying to make. However, I wanted to point out that Wikipedia being one-third porn/obscene content is unlikely in the extreme.