jeffw comments on Use of VPNs to bypass age checks on porn sites to be investigated by Australia’s eSafety watchdog

[–] Zahille7@lemmy.world 45 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Just fuck all the way off with this shit. I know this is Australia, but in the US many states are requiring ID verification for most mainstream porn sites. Sure there are others that work, but it shouldn't even be a thing in the first place.

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (7 children)

I wonder if someone can start a lawsuit by stating ID are a direct constitutional violation to view porn, as it's protected speech.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

???

Porn is protected speech?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Zagorath 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I had a similar response at first, but I believe Zen is responding to Zahill's comparison to America. In America, yes. Their first amendment is very, very broad. Over time, various cases have held that "obscene" material can be banned, but they have increasingly narrowed the definition of obscene to the point that most of what we would call porn is now legally protected. Cases like Roth and Miller, earlier on. Leading up to, more recently, Ashcroft v ACLU which prohibited bans of online porn pretty much entirely.

(Disclaimer: this comment comes from some vaguely remembered YouTube videos from Legal Eagle, plus skimming the Wikipedia articles of the cases mentioned. I'm probably being overly broad...or overly narrow, in some way here.)

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

A bigger reason is that nobody should trust the government to define porn for the purpose of classifying porn as restricted speech, just because there are too many important edge cases, especially regarding health information.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago

There is not right to view porn. Maybe making it, yes. Although SCOTUS has notably never defined obscenity in terms of porn. And that is as drastic oversimplification of the Ashcroft case.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

In America, although I'm sure that's on the Republican shit-can list.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Zagorath 3 points 3 months ago

although I’m sure that’s on the Republican shit-can list

Well even back in 2004 when Ashcroft v ACLU was decided (and protected online porn as free speech), Justice Scalia said "no, porn should not in any way be protected", and three other justices said whatever restrictions on it were in the law being adjudicated were acceptable as a way to protect children. SCOTUS's more recent decisions regarding hard age-verification in cases like Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton has held that strict age-verification laws are allowed.