this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
103 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

71922 readers
3175 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
103
Supreme Court (SCOTUS) upholds a Texas law that requires porn websites to verify that their visitors are 18 or older, rejecting a First Amendment challenge to the law (www.eff.org)
submitted 20 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) by Pro@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Today’s decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is a direct blow to the free speech rights of adults. The Court ruled that “no person—adult or child—has a First Amendment right to access speech that is obscene to minors without first submitting proof of age.” This ruling allows states to enact onerous age-verification rules that will block adults from accessing lawful speech, curtail their ability to be anonymous, and jeopardize their data security and privacy. These are real and immense burdens on adults, and the Court was wrong to ignore them in upholding Texas’ law.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Am I the only one who beleives that it would have been a more effective arguement to try and use the 4th amendment instead of the 1st? Violating free speech is just a weak claim, but "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches..." seems quite relevent here. But I am also not a lawyer.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

I thought they just stuck down the one in Tennessee? What the fuck. Sick of these corrupt courts.