151–160 of 323 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment, but the current SCOTUS doesn't care about the Constitution. Multiple conservative SCOTUS justices openly admit to taking bribes from parties with cases before them.
I believe the current precedent is that porn is not speech.
Obscenity is not speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment, but the current SCOTUS doesn't care about the Constitution. Multiple conservative SCOTUS justices openly admit to taking bribes from parties with cases before them.
I believe the current precedent is that porn is not speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment, but the current SCOTUS doesn't care about the Constitution. Multiple conservative SCOTUS justices openly admit to taking bribes from parties with cases before them.
I believe the current precedent is that porn is not speech.
C’mon, people, these issues are trivial to look up the facts about. There’s no excuse for ignorance here. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/obscenity-and-pornog...
The idea that a state court in one particular state can enforce such an absurd law against a company that likely has no business operations or servers in the state is ridiculous. I don't care if you like the porn site in question or not, or condone or endorse its content. This is a slippery slope towards every regional tinpot dictator legislature attempting to censor the internet by having an entity's domain name rev…
I agree. California has been doing this since 2022 [1][2] and it's equally indefensible.
States should not be allowed to wield their size and influence as a cudgel against other states and jurisdictions.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
[2] https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/ghost-gun-crackdown-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So he managed to block the site globally for not forcibly violating the privacy of its users with mandatory age verification. The US court system really needs to do something about this, and overturn Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton in favour of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.
FWIW, the site isn't blocked globally. They just moved to a new domain. I do generally agree that local governments trying to forcefully exert their influence beyond their jurisdiction is deeply problematic. It wouldn't even be possible to host a website on the internet if this becomes normalized, due to being held to thousands of contradicting standards. At most Texas should have the authority to tell Texas ISPs to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The GDPR doesn't try to remove anything from the global internet GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal of things from the global internet > You're free to not serve your site in the EU Geoblocking is functionally impossible
GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal _of your personal data_ from the internet _upon your request_, which is very different from a US state trying to remove a website hosted in and run by a company incorporated in another country. And geo blocking may be functionally impossible but the law cares about intent and actions, not if you prevented someone who used a VPN or lied about their location from using you…
If you say so
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just for clarity's sake, what is "the Internet", and how does "the United States" have "control" over it? https://youtu.be/iDbyYGrswtg?si=AL91MHC5q5yg2jnA
The USA controls ICANN and IANA, who together control the DNS root, as well as controlling all so-called "generic" TLDs through ICANN. Only some country TLDs are actually outside of US jurisdiction, as many of the delegate to USA-based registry providers. ICANN/IANA still control whether or not those countries even get to have domains, so the USA could decide that if the Netherlands wouldn't block motherless-dot-nl t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A federal court, sure. But this was a state court ruling on a state law.
My other comment in this thread has citations demonstrating SCOTUS support and approval for Texas to enforce these laws, as well as links to statue trackers showing where states and countries have implemented these age validation requirements for social media and adult content sites. It was a choice by Motherless and their holding company, Kick Online, to egregiously ignore Texas law; the law has been found sound by…
The other point of view is that they "very reasonably" ignored Texas law because they're not in Texas.
The Supreme Court found that the law was valid, but that ruling doesn't mean it necessarily applies in a situation like this.