Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton -Texas law requiring websites to verify the age of users

[gotonudecom]

The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which challenges a Texas law requiring websites to verify the age of users if at least one-third of their content is "harmful to minors," raising First Amendment concerns about adult access to online content.

"harmful to minors" is to vague to be a law?
Is it the governments responsibility to make these laws?
Is there age verification options on the devices that should be mandatory for parents, instead of punishing us all?
Would it be more efficient to allow the device to recognize adults?

Comments? Questions?

[bbwlover]

There are ways to restrict minors going to adult sites, this is the solution not more draconian laws restricting free speech.

[workman]

Good going FSC.

[jag]

The FSC stands up for what is right, FREE SPEECH!

[pussyhunter]

Anytime I hear the phrase "Harmful to minors" I know it is about restricting porn online not really about minors.

[gotonudecom]

Anytime I hear the phrase "Harmful to minors" I know it is about restricting porn online not really about minors.

If they wanted to protect minors, they would stop putting poisons in our food and water.

How many minors are committing suicide after watching PORN?
How many minors are committing suicide after social media?

[fetishnews]

I have always supported the FSC they are the only organization that actually does anything for free speech.

[gotonudecom]

I have always supported the FSC they are the only organization that actually does anything for free speech.

Have you heard of
X.com?

[born2bewild]

The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which challenges a Texas law requiring websites to verify the age of users if at least one-third of their content is "harmful to minors," raising First Amendment concerns about adult access to online content.

"harmful to minors" is to vague to be a law?
Is it the governments responsibility to make these laws?
Is there age verification options on the devices that should be mandatory for parents, instead of punishing us all?
Would it be more efficient to allow the device to recognize adults?

Comments? Questions?

It seems a bs law to begin with, why is 1/3rd of the content bad why not 1%?

[Big MOE]

Free speech is what separates democratic countries form dictatorships

[fappmaster]

The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which challenges a Texas law requiring websites to verify the age of users if at least one-third of their content is "harmful to minors," raising First Amendment concerns about adult access to online content.

"harmful to minors" is to vague to be a law?
Is it the governments responsibility to make these laws?
Is there age verification options on the devices that should be mandatory for parents, instead of punishing us all?
Would it be more efficient to allow the device to recognize adults?

Comments? Questions?

It seems a bs law to begin with, why is 1/3rd of the content bad why not 1%?

Who is to decide what percentage of the content is harmful, I can see this presented as evidence in front of a judge, hey judge this pussy is not harmful.....

[gotonudecom]

The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which challenges a Texas law requiring websites to verify the age of users if at least one-third of their content is "harmful to minors," raising First Amendment concerns about adult access to online content.

"harmful to minors" is to vague to be a law?
Is it the governments responsibility to make these laws?
Is there age verification options on the devices that should be mandatory for parents, instead of punishing us all?
Would it be more efficient to allow the device to recognize adults?

Comments? Questions?

It seems a bs law to begin with, why is 1/3rd of the content bad why not 1%?

Who is to decide what percentage of the content is harmful, I can see this presented as evidence in front of a judge, hey judge this pussy is not harmful.....

the problem with the law is that it is vague. Who decides "harmful"? who can change the definition of "harmful"?

How many of you are aware that the powers that be control us the most by changing the definitions of the words used?


Number ONE, the Government has NO authority to make these types of laws. PERIOD!
They are not our babysitters or parents.

[vblogger]

I support the FSC

[Boner]

Texas is a red state they will always win anti-porn cases period

[mybitches]

Let the lawyers handle it I have work to do.