The first amendment either protects all free speech or it really protects no free speech, it's that simple. "But nuh uh you can't threaten people!" You should be able to and the person you threaten should be within their rights to respond with equal or greater force in turn based on perceived danger.
Nope don't see a single line like "except for when sex or nudity is being discussed or depicted". The argument in support of obscenity laws being constitutional is solely that the founding fathers never would have classified obscenity as speech. Frankly I don't believe judges can talk to the dead and the founding fathers disagreed about a lot of things. Frankly I doubt Franklin or Jefferson would have agreed they were both perverts.
Except that's not what the Supreme Court has said over and over. Obscenity is not protected. Calling Obama a nigger on Kiwi Farms is.
there are a lot of reasonable regulations that have stopped where they should have stopped so i don't see why it wouldn't be the case here. if anything i think platforms requiring ID would be less of a legal thing and more of a thing they just do because they can get away with it
Threatening someone was originally covered, under the first amendment after it was written I could tell you I intend to fucking murder you at 4210 wolfetown rd tomorrow and it wouldn't have been illegal and would have been up to you to respond.
There are plenty of time that SCOTUS has missed the mark.
Fun fact: that quote comes from the case of Schenck v. United States involving a man protesting the military draft.
I'm amazed that the iconic logic of "am I gonna need a license for my damn toaster!" is playing out in real time over children being restricted from porn.
I'm sorry you might not be able to use porn sites so easily anymore. Maybe you'll go outside. Maybe not, who knows? Either way, I don't think porn sites requiring ID will lead to censorship of Kiwi Farms because obscene material is already not allowed and, thus, the website isn't affected.
Yes it is. See Miller v. California (1973). They've been shifty and vague about how they define "obscenity" in the intervening half-century (to the annoyance of many), but generally speaking they've held that pornography is in fact protected speech.
The Left has multiple has multiple times pushed the idea that you should not be able to express your opinion anonymously on the internet slopes are slippery when people want them to be slippery
It has already happened in nearly every Western nation that now has strict internet controls. I actually remember the posts about the UK internet shit ~10 years ago and people becoming increasingly concerned about it, then it progressed to Yew Need a Loicense Fer Dat, and now they get thrown in prison for memes. It always starts with "we have to restrict porn and dangerous stuff for the safety of the children!"
It's wild how quickly you result to ad hominem the second your points get challenged.
KF has content on it which could be considered sexually obscene. It's not a stretch to look 10 years down the road and believe it would be in a silo that requires an ID check to get into. You know... to protect kids.
x 88 x 62 x 18 x 4 x 5 x 3 x 2 x 48 x 2 x 1 x 1
ok how would you stop kids accessing porn without their parents watching their literal every move 24/7
Fair point, but yeah, "obscenity" differs.
If you just admitted you want to goon without your ID being stored by a retarded porn site, I wouldn't care. Your pearl clutching is what bugs me, but it is what it is.
It is not the same as getting upset at someone looking at your ID at all. They don't make a copy of your ID or are required to do the "goy dance" or whatever Null calls it to prove you're who is on the ID. They check the birthday (if even) and then sell you whatever.
And now we've moved onto projection. This is amazing.