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.

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        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.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          It does mention “the people” though.

          I’ve always have trouble with this one. The second amendment is a big problem in this country, especially combined with our hatful culture. DC v Heller should have gone the other way because it would have saved lives and allowed some progress.

          But when I read the amendment, to me it comes across very much like “the people have the right to guns so that the militia can be called to arms” and not just “the militia gets guns.”

          The amendment is outdated and the framers could never have anticipated our current state, much less been in favor of it. Maybe they even misspoke and did only mean for the militia members to be able to keep their guns at home. But what they wrote sure reads to me like the conservatives want it to, at least as far as the individual right to own guns.

          This is just an academic discussion anyway. These weapons are part of the personal identity of at least tens of millions of Americans, plus we have a fully Republican government incoming, plus the court that would have to do something about it is even more conservative and corrupt than before.

        • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          15 hours ago

          “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

          • danc4498@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 hours ago

            My point is that the courts have been taking the most generous possible interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

            An individual is not a militia, yet every citizen can own a gun based on the generous interpretation of the courts. Even if you aren’t in a well organized militia.

            Open carry? They read the 2nd amendment and thought it said individuals should be allowed to open carry for any reason at all.

            These are generous interpretations of the second amendment. But for the first amendment, the courts are much more eager to limit rights.

          • Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            15 hours ago

            Can you explain your position? Honest question, because if I just take your post “Militias are armed citizens” I can use logic to know that to be false. Militia can be comprised of armed citizens, but armed citizens are not militia…

            A log cabin is made of logs, but a log isnt a cabin?

            • Forester@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 minutes ago

              https://www.britannica.com/topic/militia

              military organization of citizens with limited military training, which is available for emergency service, usually for local defense. In many countries the militia is of ancient origin; Macedonia under Philip II (d. 336 bc), for example, had a militia of clansmen in border regions who could be called to arms to repel invaders. Among the Anglo-Saxon peoples of early medieval Europe, the militia was institutionalized in the fyrd, in which every able-bodied free male was required to give military service. Similar arrangements evolved in other countries. In general, however, the emergence in the Middle Ages of a quasi-professional military aristocracy, which performed military service in return for the right to control land and servile labour, tended to cause the militia to decay, particularly as political power became increasingly centralized and life became more secure. The institution persisted nevertheless and, with the rise of national monarchies, served in some measure to provide a manpower pool for the expanding standing armies.

            • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              15 hours ago

              Can you explain your position?

              Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary’ - Karl Marx

              • Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                15 hours ago

                I had no idea Karl Marx was an author of the constitution of the United States! Wow! Thanks!