Court Rules in Pornhub’s Favor in Finding Texas Age-Verification Law Violates First Amendment::A Texas law requiring age-verification measures for porn sites, challenged by Pornhub and others, violates the First Amendment, a judge ruled.
You can sit back and wonder why the fuck we’re still dealing with these petty garbage laws, or… realize the horror at how much taxpayer money is used to write them up, bicker and decide over them and waste time and resources in our legal system.
Every one of these right-wing, trash laws is a black hole of bullshit, sucking money from our economy, going nowhere, meant to do nothing but point and make a statement they don’t even expect to pass.
Fuck all of it. You only get to choose to be against them, you can’t choose whether your money was used to poop them into existence.
The courts need to start sanctioning these mofos. Pay for your own color of law bullshit.
I’m all for taxation becoming a “choose your allocation” affair.
I fear nobody would fund sewers. Or everyone would
I would just be interested to hear if these fucks—er folks— are interested in proving their own virtue, or if its really as banal and simple as always trying to consolidate further control. You’d think they would learn after that piece some outlet did where they “bought” ad data for Washington DC and powerful internet users’ “interests”/ad profile data.
going nowhere…
You misspelled “their pockets”
This is good news for all those GOP politicians frequenting these sites who also don’t want their identities leaked.
That’s the annoying part. I would suggest an alternative: everyone who voted for this law is opt-in to a private market version (some kind of registry) that is legal and they will be monitored for compliance. Kind of like that CovenantKeeper thing Wired reported on.
And we all know how that would end JoshDugger
Do you want porn, or do you want to create more closet pedophiles like half the Catholic clergy?
You can either tolerate human nature, which includes sexuality, sorry, or you can suppress it and break people to their cores, causing harm to them and eventually others including children.
Why is it, when we try to suppress parts of our nature through law, it’s always lust and never the far more destructive greed? Lust can be positive and celebratory, greed has no redeeming qualities.
It’s all puritan shit, plain and simple. Religious folks think the world’s problems would be solved if everyone would just follow their dogma, and everything will be hunky dory. Humans have been fighting about this since the invention of religion.
So basically forever?
Hey, it’s not always greed that we give a pass! In the US we are also fantastically lenient with violence as well!
Especially violence from cops.
💀
I live in Texas. Is it my patriotic duty to go rub one out now?
I don’t know how old you are, nor should I, so I can’t do anything to stop you.
Wondering what this guy would do if he did know the age…?
As shit as this law was to ever be put to pen and paper (figuratively), silver lining is it getting struck down sets a great precedence that’ll help the fight in other States that have passed similar laws.
Not to mention a federal law that seems to have bipartisan support.
We all like porn, man
Has anyone ever come out on top in a confrontation with the porn industry?
With the porn industry, even if you’re on top you’re still getting fucked.
I think that’s just sex in general lol
Only banking companies who handle monetary transactions with the sites can exert power. E.g they were the ones who basically required users on PH to be verified to post videos because of issues of traffiking and illegal videos being uploaded.
From the article
At least five other states have enacted similar age-verification laws aimed at blocking access to pornography sites: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah and Virginia. Pornhub, for one, after complying with the Louisiana law, subsequently opted to block access to users the other four states.
So only one of 6 have been overturned. And the others have existed longer. 
Virginia came later, for what it’s worth.
In fairness there was no confrontation in those states. Texas likely got the bonk because of requiring the disclaimer being a bridge too far, but the ruling explicitly blocks the age verification portion as well so it could be used as precedent against the other states now.
Depends. Cowgirl and reverse cowgirl for example are on top if you want to fuck with the porn industry
The lawyers.
There are no other tops when it comes to pissing off the BigPorn. Everyone’s BigPorn’s bottom, and they don’t have lube in the budget.
Is this just the Texas variant, or every one?
Pornhub is complying with the Louisiana law. In Louisiana, the state has digitized IDs that make veryifying your age online for this law very convenient.
In the other states, they are using this law to effectively outlaw pornography. For everyone. Especially the Texas law.
Got hit with this stupid thing in Montana this week. I had no idea the assholes in Helena had passed such a thing here.
cough VPN cough
I was running one. It should have looked like I am in Seattle.
IP leak test indicates my vpn is working.
I need to investigate further.
You might need to clear your cache, there could be miscellaneous data in your browser history or stored files that indicate your location to a website that you ahem frequent
Good thought, thank you.
Remembered I had enabled split tunneling. Added my browser to the covered programs. Now the sites tell me “ACCESS DENIED!!! NO BOTS! NO VPN!” In big yellow text on a black screen. 😂
Until you’ve found a solution, I pray you’ve found other ways to release the pressure
Bless you Pornhub, you’re doing the Lord’s work.
Let’s fucking goooooooo congrats to the Texas homies
Good it was some serious y’all qaeda bullshit
I wonder if the judge had to retire to chambers to “deliberate” or if it was summary judgement, lol. Just asking questions.
Can someone please explain to me how the first amendment argument is valid here? I read the article, and I still don’t get it.
Basically Texas is making it difficult to use your ID to prove you are of legal age to view pornography. Other states are doing this too. Louisiana, however, has made it very easy to use your ID to prove you can legally view pornography - which is why their law is being complied with and not being sued to overturn.
The actual document pretty much says the federal decision on decency is established in the first amendment category as an already established precedent and whatever the inept republicans were trying wasn’t remotely good enough to challenge it.
“V. CONCLUSION At the core of Defendant’s argument is the suggestion that H.B. 1181 is constitutional if the Supreme Court changes its precedent on obscenity. Defendant may certainly attempt a challenge to Miller and Reno at the Supreme Court. But it cannot argue that it is likely to succeed on the merits as they currently stand based upon the mere possibility of a change in precedent. Nor can Defendant argue that the status quo is maintained at the district court level by disregarding Supreme Court precedent. The status quo has been—and still is today—that content filtering is a narrower alternative than age verification. Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. at 667. 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. See ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Pa. 2007), aff’d, 534 F.3d 181. (“I may not turn a blind eye to the law in order to attempt to satisfy my urge to protect this nation’s youth by upholding a flawed statute, especially when a more effective and less restrictive alternative is readily available[.]”). Because the Court finds that H.B. 1181 violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, it will GRANT Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, (Dkt. # 5), as to their First Amendment claims and GRANT the motion in part and DENY the motion in part as to their Section 230 claims. Defendant Angela Colmenero, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Texas, is preliminarily ENJOINED from enforcing any provision of H.B. 1181.”
Thank you.
Curious, what is the less restrictive alternative they referenced?
deleted by creator
