this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
456 points (98.7% liked)

News

24233 readers
4837 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Supreme Court's hearing of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton signals potential limits on First Amendment protections for online pornography.

The case involves a Texas law mandating age verification for websites with "sexual material harmful to minors," challenging the 2004 Ashcroft v. ACLU precedent, which struck down similar laws under strict scrutiny.

Justices, citing the inadequacy of modern filtering tools, seemed inclined to weaken free speech protections, exploring standards like intermediate scrutiny.

The ruling could reshape online speech regulations, leaving adults’ access to sexual content uncertain while tightening restrictions for minors.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 157 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Notice how we're already asking past the sale with the tacit labeling of "sexual material harmful to minors," with the presupposed declaration that sexual material is automatically harmful to minors.

The all-consuming mission to look at boobies is essentially universal for all pubescent boys from about 12 all the way to the age of majority. This is well known, and none of us came off any the worse despite widespread availability of older brothers' back issues of Hustler, Usenet, dial-up BBS systems, and ultimately the world wide web.

If teens weren't naturally interested in sex where wouldn't been all them teenage pregnancies. Q.E.D.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 39 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is an excellent observation.

We now no longer have the debate over whether or not this content is necessarily harmful to minors. It's now automatically bad, and the new framing is: shouldn't we ban bad things?

Should expect more of this kind of newspeak/doublespeak as the Trump years continue.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 33 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Just saying, the shit you can find on the Internet does not come even close to what Hustler was. There is instant access to all kinds of weird and fucked fetish shit that just wasn't accessible in the 90s and earlier.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 42 points 2 weeks ago

Bizarre fetish shit was very much available in the 90s and earlier. It just wasn't in hustler or playboy.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There's a vid on archive.org of the Spice Channel that must have been off someone's VHS tape. It flickers a lot and is barely watchable, but I was curious what we were all missing back then.

Turns out, way more softcore than I was expecting. Slightly more hardcore than Skinamax at the time, but not by much.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] esc27@lemmy.world 105 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

So we can ban content that is claimed to be harmful to minors but not weapons that actually kill children...

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 46 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Even in terms of speech, it's ridiculous to claim that boobs are more harmful than a social media diet of assholes claiming women or racial minorities aren't people.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 21 points 2 weeks ago

Well yeah it's never really been about what they say it is

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

Jfc when you put it that way

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 82 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It’s just the first amendment.

[–] mxcory@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Freedom of speech is so important it is literally the first thing they remembered to add in.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 26 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

They didn’t even mention individuals having the rights to own guns, but god damn they had to add that one to the second amendment through the courts.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"A well regulated militia"

Back then that meant a gun group with regular training, any civillian in the militia could also own guns for private use

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 76 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

If we're banning content harmful to children why dont we start with Capitalist propoganda and religious indoctrination :3

[–] Skymt@feddit.nu 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And those brain washing shows on YouTube

[–] hmmm@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Both are accurate

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 70 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Define "sexual material." What about the minors who get sexual gratification from Linux installation media repository mirrors?

[–] Thassodar@lemm.ee 41 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm not a minor but WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT MY KINK?!

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 25 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You can sudo mount and fork my box anytime....

[–] Thassodar@lemm.ee 9 points 2 weeks ago

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

There’s an entire fediverse dedicated to it. It’s called Lemmy.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To quote a former Supreme Court justice and asshole, "I know it when I see it."

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 weeks ago

Seems a bit redundant there.

[–] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
sudo apt-get install boobies
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 64 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

You gotta be a really profoundly uncomfortable, nervous human being to think of sex as bad.

What an absolute sign of weakness.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 33 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

You gotta be a really profoundly uncomfortable, nervous human being

That's an interesting way to say "religious".

Project2025 and it's evangelical backers are a major driver of this prudishness.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 30 points 2 weeks ago

Or, and hear me out on this one, you're a member of a group, like various other groups, that want to control every aspect of human lives, including sex, to bind them to our little group forever so we can control them even more?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 62 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Get ready for the slippery slope. Anything conservatives don’t want you to see or read will be placed behind an “identify yourself” firewall.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 61 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The vague threat of "think of the children maybe being exposed to sexual things" challenging our first amendment right but it becomes some huge debate if a woman is being harassed/stalked/threatened online.

**they are justififying destroying our rights for their feelings **

[–] nomy@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 weeks ago

they are justififying destroying our rights for their feelings

Well yeah, the P stands for Projection in the party of "facts don't care about your feelings."

[–] Churlish_Witness@lemmy.world 54 points 1 week ago (6 children)

it's so shocking that the right-wing's commitment to free speech was entirely performative and predicated on no principle whatsoever

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] minnow@lemmy.world 50 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

What's taught in schools: the parents should have a say! Don't let the government decide what to teach our kids!

Books in libraries and content on the internet: the government must step in and make certain content illegal!

Of course, fascists don't care if they're hypocritical. They say whatever gives them the most power in any situation, so calling out hypocrisy won't stop them. It's still good to do, though.

[–] lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 weeks ago

Don’t let the government ~~decide what to~~ teach our kids!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Huckledebuck@sh.itjust.works 36 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Kids are gonna start finding porn the old-fashioned way: randomly coming across discarded magazines at the park. That was my first experience.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 34 points 2 weeks ago

Or torrents... It would be funny if this just ended up teaching new generations how to torrent.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Good luck finding a magazine anywhere any more. I assume they can still find it online from random small websites, like in the old days.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ThomasCrappersGhost@feddit.uk 26 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think Epstein highlighted that there is a much bigger problem going on than some 15 year old looking up “mum gets railed by football team”.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

some republicants cheering for the scotus ruling today will be scrambling to try to legislate around it tomorrow.. because their porn habits will get hacked and released.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 23 points 1 week ago

Noooo haha we we can't fix your real problems that you want us to fix because of how we think some witch hunter in the 1600s relates to the constitution, and politics is just hard and moves slow :(

Anyway, here, we shitcanned the constitution for something pretty much nobody asked for and won't actually fix anything. Enjoy <3

[–] passwordforgetter@lemmy.nz 22 points 2 weeks ago

Free speech for pornographers, but instant IP/device ID ban if you criticise Israel online.

[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Don't even act like the SCOTUS upholds the Constitution, they uphold the christian bible now. So unamerican.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Soon they'll make sexual partners register with the state or straight up make premarital sex illegal. And anyone found breaking the law (i.e. women getting pregnant) will go to jail.

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

… will go to jail and be forced to carry the pregnancy to term, be billed for delivery services, and raise the kid on her own. Nothing screams “stable childhood” like the government forcing your kid on you as punishment for getting pregnant.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And then soon after CPS will be called and they'll take away the kid and I don't even want to think about where they'll send them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 14 points 2 weeks ago

Constitution smonchstitution. We don’t need rights where we’re going.

Buckle up!

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Ain't the point of a right that it's protected from the government?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

We're going to see a lot more of these challenges to SCOTUS precedent in the coming years. The Dobbs decision was them stating loud and clear that they will find any excuse to justify their prefud8ced decisions.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

I'm calling it right now. They use this as first amendment cover for TikTok.

load more comments
view more: next ›