Age verification for porn sites is not protected by federal law.Age verification/gate keeping for social media however is censorship that is protected by Section 230 of Federal Law and states cannot pass these social media laws.
>>109365064https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50096-CV0.pdf
>but it upheld age verification requirements
>>109365087porn age verification = legalsocial media age verification = illegal
I post a picture of my dick for wvery age verification so far. If it fails, I just draw a smiley face. While system is automated.
>>109365064>2-1 vote court of appealsyeah I'll wait until it hits SCOTUS for the real opinions to come out
>>109365064remember the good ol days i was 11, didn't knew what sex was, suddenly saw a porn ad of a hot naked woman getting brutally gang banged, oh what a feeling it was, my macbook screen was inches away from mom, I wish i could feel it again, the heat, the blood pumping, and weird gross but intriguing feeling. what a beautiful memory. I don't think mom would've been mad even if she caught me, im lucky i was raised by a single mom with no other kids, all alone nice and cozy on the internet instead of wasting time socializing outside like a midwit normie.
>>109365096Only the content filtering is illegal.
>>109365138I looked more into it and it said the age verification is only needed if 1/3 of the the platform's content is deemed harmful/sexual. And platform owners just need to purge the sex part to not go through with age verification.So there's a way out for websites. By splitting NSFW from SFW part. And only requiring age verification on NSFW parts
>>109365064but social media sites are porn sites, so your argument is invalid
>>109365178The 1/3rd law is strictly from the Texas Law H.B.1181. However, the majority opinion in FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC., ET AL. v. PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, was that age verification isn't a burden to Free Speech and age verification laws only require intermediate scrutiny because IDing people in-person wasn't a violation of their rights, and Texas has a compelling governmental interest in protecting minors from pornography.
>>109365235So the Supreme Court forewent any deference for Anonymity under the First Amendment?It makes sense considering the Supreme Courts ruling that the Federal Reserve is "historically tied to the 1st and 2nd Central Bank" but essentially without Constitutional authority. Thus, it violates the constitution without an Article 5.The US is a mockery of itself.Clown world.
>>109365129true, Appellate Court for 5th is only preliminary. If supreme court hears it, they'll likely strike down the age verification on social media all together as barriers to entry for chilling effect.
>>109365235>was that age verification isn't a burden to Free Speech and age verification laws only require intermediate scrutiny because IDing people in-person wasn't a violation of their rightsAt what age does free speech begin to apply? I don't think this would stand at all
