Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

Post by andrewflnr » Wed, Dec 24, 2025, 3:19 AM UTC

devsda wrote: post #95

robkop wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those curious about the "consistent principle of law" here - SCOTUS wrestled with nearly exactly this question in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton earlier this year, and effectively emboldened more of these laws. Previously the Fifth Circuit had relied heavily on Ginsberg v. New York (1968) to justify rational basis review. But Ginsberg was a narrow scope - it held that minors don't have the same First Amendment r…

Law is a strange and possibly the only aspect in human societies where people are by default assumed to know, understand and follow it to the letter when everybody acknowledges that law is open to interpretation. You cannot in most cases claim ignorance as it can be abused by criminals. But there is whole industry of education, profession, journals, blogs, podcasts and videos trying to teach, interpret and explain th…

Post by The_President » Wed, Dec 24, 2025, 3:39 AM UTC

nunez wrote: post #97

The_President wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False analogy given by this federal judge. App stores are gateways to social environments and unknown or future content. Every book in a bookstore can be verified because the content can be known and audited. Regardless of opinion on the root issue, this judges statement aligns books with the Internet and they are absolutely not the same.

Yes, but you can't stop eight year olds from grabbing a James Patterson or Stephen King novel from the shelf. Their parents should, and some librarians might throw a moral exception to their choice, but if they wanna read It, they're gonna read It. Enforcing anything other than that is a huge 1A violation IMO.

Post by mpalmer » Wed, Dec 24, 2025, 3:53 AM UTC

senshan wrote: post #8

If the judge finds that apps and books are so equivalent, then letting the apps require age verification should do no harm -- everyone underage or privacy-concerned will simply go to the bookstore or a library. Right? Apparently, these are not quite equivalent. Like books and weapons, like books and alcohol, etc.

Post by coderatlarge » Wed, Dec 24, 2025, 4:06 AM UTC

andrewflnr wrote: post #101

devsda wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law is a strange and possibly the only aspect in human societies where people are by default assumed to know, understand and follow it to the letter when everybody acknowledges that law is open to interpretation. You cannot in most cases claim ignorance as it can be abused by criminals. But there is whole industry of education, profession, journals, blogs, podcasts and videos trying to teach, interpret and explain th…

Strange and destructive. I believe comprehensible law is a human right that is critically underacknowledged. Like, up there with the right to speech and a fair trial. If you cannot understand the law as it applies to you, you cannot possibly be free under that law, because your actions will always be constrained by your uncertainty.

Post by akerl_ » Wed, Dec 24, 2025, 4:13 AM UTC

knodi123 wrote: post #102

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #2

Judge Robert Pitman said that it violates the First Amendment and is "more likely than not - unconstitutional." The Act is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book. We enjoy 1A protections of speech and assembly. When we consider our rights,…

> "would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors..." It's a dumb law, but, devil's advocate - isn't that how porn shops work? And porn shops also sell some non-porn items, too.