I don’t see anyone saying that. They’ve been explaining why this law wouldn’t pass and why it wouldn’t be effective. You can do better…
From the article:
“The statute is not narrowly tailored and chills the speech of Plaintiffs and adults who wish to access sexual materials,” Ezra said in the decision. “[T]he law is not narrowly tailored because it substantially regulates protected speech, is severely underinclusive, and uses overly restrictive enforcement methods.”
The judge concluded, “The Court agrees that the state has a legitimate goal in protecting children from sexually explicit material online. But that goal, however crucial, does not negate this Court’s burden to ensure that the laws passed in its pursuit comport with established First Amendment doctrine. There are viable and constitutional means to achieve Texas’s goal, and nothing in this order prevents the state from pursuing those means.”
Absolutely. But the law needs to be applied correctly, and this one particllular law couldn’t be applied based on certain observations reported here in the comment section too. Preexisting tools are •parental control •sites blocked by the isp •age verification tools that don’t impact on user privacy, such as using a credit card associated to an account More importantly, if we are to force age verifications, we should access a method with clear and well designated steps, not just a vague idea, as well as defining what is adult content. This is substantially the argument here: freedom of expression, data privacy.
Court Rules in Pornhub’s Favor in Finding Texas Age-Verification Law Violates First Amendment ( variety.com )
cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/4221949...