Biden DOJ Sides with Porn Industry's Lawsuit Against Texas's Age Verification Law

[hadit]

My son was on the internet 30 years ago. He has a 15 year old daughter who has been since she was able.

Mine was as well, and we have two teenaged grandsons who also know what they're doing on there. Smart kids. What I'm saying is we haven't struck the right balance between giving access and restricting it for kids in school yet.

 

[struth]

We have to start from the facts before going any further.

Ah that explains why you deflected

 

[Rawley]

Showing boobs is porn? Wow, how many Hollywood actresses are you now claiming are porn stars?

She makes over a million bucks a year from that cite. Damn, that's some nice coin.

 

[pknopp]

Ah that explains why you deflected

You deflected.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Oh, he was told by his parents. He figured out how to bypass the filters on his own.

Then he is just a little shit bird and needs discipline.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Now you are being deliberately obtuse.

What part of "X-rated" do you not understand?

She makes hardcore porn. Just google her name and follow the links to Pornhub.

Idiot.

I can't. The state of TN won't let me!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Mine was as well, and we have two teenaged grandsons who also know what they're doing on there. Smart kids. What I'm saying is we haven't struck the right balance between giving access and restricting it for kids in school yet.

Of course. It is called parenting. Something liberals do not believe in.

 

[g5000]

Of course. It is called parenting. Something liberals do not believe in.

Do you think "conservative" parents let their kids watch a porn star endorse Trump?

 

[JoeB131]

So no difference in reading about a football game in this, and watching it on TV? Really?

View attachment 1066429

Not sure that's even an apt metaphor.

What do you think a kid is getting out of watching a video he's not getting out of looking at naughty pictures?

 

[JoeB131]

Do you think "conservative" parents let their kids watch a porn star endorse Trump?

Not to mention Hulk Hogan, who had sex with Bubba the Love Sponge's wife because he was into cuckolding.

 

[g5000]

Not to mention Hulk Hogan, who had sex with Bubba the Love Sponge's wife because he was into cuckolding.

Trump couldn't get any decent people to show up. They won't take his calls.

 

[braalian]

I did have sex with a woman that works in the adult industry when I vacationed in Florida a couple of years ago. She told me after we had sex.

Anyone famous?

 

[Blaster]

Anyone famous?

I don't think so. She was an awesome lay though.

 

[hadit]

Then he is just a little shit bird and needs discipline.

He got it.

 

[hadit]

Not to mention Hulk Hogan, who had sex with Bubba the Love Sponge's wife because he was into cuckolding.

Wow, you guys are really obsessed with the private lives of complete strangers.

 

[hadit]

Of course. It is called parenting. Something liberals do not believe in.

Come on, you know we rely on the schools to do the parenting for us. Those same liberals then turn around and excoriate parents who say, "No, I'M going to take responsibility to teach my kids right from wrong and how to behave in society, so I'm teaching them at home". Apparently, that scares them.

 

[Curried Goats]

Have you literally not been paying any attention to what I've been saying? I've seen posted that people think efforts to limit children's access to pron violates somebody's 1st Amendment rights. I'm showing that we routinely do it. Are you just arguing with me because you don't want to agree with me or something?

Except you haven't shown how we routinely do it. You only imagine you have. We don't violate anyone rights to free speech nor are we protecting children from hearing racist commentary when the KKK have to shout their message from the sidewalk or street in front of the school rather than the steps. They're still able to hear it. It's not about protecting their precious ears or their feelings, especially when the school they might be walking into could be named after someone like Robert E Lee or George Washington. That's just a silly argument.

 

[hadit]

Except you haven't shown how we routinely do it. You only imagine you have. We don't violate anyone rights to free speech nor are we protecting children from hearing racist commentary when the KKK have to shout their message from the sidewalk or street in front of the school rather than the steps. They're still able to hear it.

Their parents can take them away from the situation. When kids are in school, they are captive to the government and depend on it for protection. Hence, an exception to the 1st.

It's not about protecting their precious ears or their feelings, especially when the school they might be walking into could be named after someone like Robert E Lee or George Washington. That's just a silly argument.

You think it's silly because you don't approve of it and want to keep ranting about the names of schools instead. You don't think we routinely violate the 1st Amendment?

Okay, hate speech laws violate the 1st Amendment.
Abortion clinic buffer zones violate the 1st Amendment.
Targeting organizations for IRS audits and denying them certain tax statuses because they might be conservative based on their name violates the 1st Amendment.
The government colluding with a social media platform to censor speech violates the 1st Amendment IMO.
Arresting people sitting in their cars in a church parking lot because Covid reasons violates the 1st Amendment.
Making tobacco advertising illegal violates the 1st Amendment.

We routinely violate the 1st in many ways. Now, what exactly are you arguing against? Someone posted that the 1st Amendment prevents us from taking steps to prevent children from accessing adult content on the internet. I'm showing it doesn't. Do you disagree with that or are you just arguing with me because you don't want to agree?

 

[JoeB131]

Targeting organizations for IRS audits and denying them certain tax statuses because they might be conservative based on their name violates the 1st Amendment.

Except that isn't what happened. What happened was, based ontheir names, it was clear they were PACs when they claimed to be social welfare groups.

In other words, they were committing tax fraud.

The government colluding with a social media platform to censor speech violates the 1st Amendment IMO.

That can be your opinion. I have a simple enough solution to that. Get rid of Section 230 protections for libel and slander on Social Media, and watch how fast they clean up their own act with no prodding from the government.

 

[Curried Goats]

Their parents can take them away from the situation. When kids are in school, they are captive to the government and depend on it for protection. Hence, an exception to the 1st.

What? I don't even understand this argument. Do you think the right to free speech is the same as a right to an audience or something? That being denied the right to go wherever you want to speak is some infringement? Because that's simply not the case.

You think it's silly because you don't approve of it and want to keep ranting about the names of schools instead. You don't think we routinely violate the 1st Amendment?

We don't routinely violate the first Amendment. The first Amendment doesn't give you the right to go wherever you want to speak your mind.

Okay, hate speech laws violate the 1st Amendment.

What hate speech laws? What do you imagine those entail?

Abortion clinic buffer zones violate the 1st Amendment.

Again, your right to free speech is not unlimited. You're simply using infringement here not to designate some legal argument but your feelings.

Targeting organizations for IRS audits and denying them certain tax statuses because they might be conservative based on their name violates the 1st Amendment.

Jesus is this just going to be a right wing conspiracy fest?

The government colluding with a social media platform to censor speech violates the 1st Amendment IMO.

You dont have a right to a platform you moron. If a private individaul wants to work with government to ban you from their private property, tough shit.

Arresting people sitting in their cars in a church parking lot because Covid reasons violates the 1st Amendment.
Making tobacco advertising illegal violates the 1st Amendment.

We routinely violate the 1st in many ways. Now, what exactly are you arguing against? Someone posted that the 1st Amendment prevents us from taking steps to prevent children from accessing adult content on the internet. I'm showing it doesn't. Do you disagree with that or are you just arguing with me because you don't want to agree?

All you're arguing is your feelings my guy. Present a court ruling that found any of those a violation of anyone's first amendment rights.