Crazy how something legal and that should stay legal is easily restricted to use through big company own initiative to limit it and evil politicians bending innocuous laws and regulation bodies to block legal content that they don't like.
> In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts is not ipso facto obscene according to the Miller test.
I'm not sure you can make the statement that pornographic materials aren't protected speech. I don't think you can make the statement that they are though.
In practice it is protected, but as the law is written it's hard to say how or why. Pure pornography with penetrative sex, by any reasonable definition, "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" and "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". And it's pretty clear that most pornography is intended to "appeal to the prurient interest". So it's really only protected because juries refuse to convict, meaning it's only protected if the defendant is seen as likable.
Why Does “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” matter. And who gets to judge that? I can arbitrary decide it does hold artistic value to me. If at least one person finds it is valuable why should it be banned?
I understand you’re simply quoting the Miller Test but the entire concept of obscenity is ridiculous. Speech is speech. The Constitution says nothing about obscenity.
“Protected sexual speech” is such a bizarre phrase. Nobody who wrote the first amendment envisioned that. How can you say the First Amendment prohibits a democratically elected legislature from banning something that was never envisioned as being protected by the First Amendment by the people who wrote it? It makes no sense. Surely the views of either the writers of the first amendment of the past, or the democratically elected legislature in the present, must prevail.
because that pretty much is the state of any kind of speach it could apply to. either we operate from it as a first principle/“sacred text” or its scope shrinks as modern life loses any literal comparison to life in the late 1700s
That doesn’t make any sense. To the extent that “modern life” diverges from the late 1700s, then you don’t need the First Amendment. Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not.
What doesn't make any sense is proposing the constitution be interpreted as it was when there was no general right to vote or general right to political speech... then claiming this is the "voters decide" option.
Your argument undermines the whole idea of written constitutions. It just means that we should ignore the First Amendment altogether. If there is a problem with what people thought in 1789, how can words written back then possibly bind elected legislatures in 2026 in any whatsoever?
> Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not.
No, they can’t. The point of the constitution is to prevent arbitrary changes that violate the civil rights of the individual. A tyranny of the majority (the flaw in democracy) does not get to override fundamental individual rights.
> Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not.
You're essentially arguing against a constitution. Governments can work without one but it should at least be recognized what we're losing. There are no longer any practical limits to what laws legislators are allowed to enact.
There's a huge disconnect between what the voters want and what legislators actually enact which is why I'm glad we have a constitution. My home state, Ohio, actually tried to limit ballot initiatives because they knew they knew the upcoming abortion ballot measure was going to pass. Literally the definition of legislators not representing the will of the people. I wouldn't ever argue "some state legislature passed a law therefore it must be what the people wanted."
The SCOTUS ruling that allowed age verification for porn websites was a completely incorrect ruling. It amounts to restricting speech and should be reversed. Unfortunately it has emboldened the religious right - and make no mistake, a core part of the MAGA movement is a theocratic movement.
According to PH, Utah is one of their biggest states, so this could raise a lot of tax revenue. Billions, based on the amount of this material that Utahans consume on an annual basis.
> According to PH, Utah is one of their biggest states
This is actually one of those "turns out!" facts people like to bring up that isn't actually rooted in any solid data. It was widely circulates based on a misinterpreted 2009 Harvard study, and Utah generally ranked in middle or lower middle of the pack when it came to site traffic per capita by state (in years prior to SB287, that is--obviously now traffic is next to none because of the IP ban).
Technofascist MAGA, evangelical Christofascists, and illiberal limousine neoliberals all agree in outlawing rights, and removing freedoms and privacy from individuals. They've lost the plot on the point of a free country while they try to impose their moral conformity on everyone else.
Crazy how something legal and that should stay legal is easily restricted to use through big company own initiative to limit it and evil politicians bending innocuous laws and regulation bodies to block legal content that they don't like.
> Producing, selling, and consuming pornography are matters of protected sexual speech so long nothing illegal and criminal occur.
This is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
From your link:
> In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts is not ipso facto obscene according to the Miller test.
I'm not sure you can make the statement that pornographic materials aren't protected speech. I don't think you can make the statement that they are though.
In practice it is protected, but as the law is written it's hard to say how or why. Pure pornography with penetrative sex, by any reasonable definition, "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" and "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". And it's pretty clear that most pornography is intended to "appeal to the prurient interest". So it's really only protected because juries refuse to convict, meaning it's only protected if the defendant is seen as likable.
Why Does “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” matter. And who gets to judge that? I can arbitrary decide it does hold artistic value to me. If at least one person finds it is valuable why should it be banned?
I understand you’re simply quoting the Miller Test but the entire concept of obscenity is ridiculous. Speech is speech. The Constitution says nothing about obscenity.
It is ridiculous, i agree 100%. It's a holdover from the bad old days.
This is a good point. A lot of people don't realize online pornography is arguably federally illegal, just totally unenforced.
“Protected sexual speech” is such a bizarre phrase. Nobody who wrote the first amendment envisioned that. How can you say the First Amendment prohibits a democratically elected legislature from banning something that was never envisioned as being protected by the First Amendment by the people who wrote it? It makes no sense. Surely the views of either the writers of the first amendment of the past, or the democratically elected legislature in the present, must prevail.
because that pretty much is the state of any kind of speach it could apply to. either we operate from it as a first principle/“sacred text” or its scope shrinks as modern life loses any literal comparison to life in the late 1700s
That doesn’t make any sense. To the extent that “modern life” diverges from the late 1700s, then you don’t need the First Amendment. Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not.
What doesn't make any sense is proposing the constitution be interpreted as it was when there was no general right to vote or general right to political speech... then claiming this is the "voters decide" option.
Your argument undermines the whole idea of written constitutions. It just means that we should ignore the First Amendment altogether. If there is a problem with what people thought in 1789, how can words written back then possibly bind elected legislatures in 2026 in any whatsoever?
> Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not.
No, they can’t. The point of the constitution is to prevent arbitrary changes that violate the civil rights of the individual. A tyranny of the majority (the flaw in democracy) does not get to override fundamental individual rights.
> Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not.
You're essentially arguing against a constitution. Governments can work without one but it should at least be recognized what we're losing. There are no longer any practical limits to what laws legislators are allowed to enact.
There's a huge disconnect between what the voters want and what legislators actually enact which is why I'm glad we have a constitution. My home state, Ohio, actually tried to limit ballot initiatives because they knew they knew the upcoming abortion ballot measure was going to pass. Literally the definition of legislators not representing the will of the people. I wouldn't ever argue "some state legislature passed a law therefore it must be what the people wanted."
[dead]
Freedom often isn’t.
https://montypython.fandom.com/wiki/Tax_on_Thingy
These laws are out of touch with the quality of local AI porn generators.
The SCOTUS ruling that allowed age verification for porn websites was a completely incorrect ruling. It amounts to restricting speech and should be reversed. Unfortunately it has emboldened the religious right - and make no mistake, a core part of the MAGA movement is a theocratic movement.
According to PH, Utah is one of their biggest states, so this could raise a lot of tax revenue. Billions, based on the amount of this material that Utahans consume on an annual basis.
> According to PH, Utah is one of their biggest states
This is actually one of those "turns out!" facts people like to bring up that isn't actually rooted in any solid data. It was widely circulates based on a misinterpreted 2009 Harvard study, and Utah generally ranked in middle or lower middle of the pack when it came to site traffic per capita by state (in years prior to SB287, that is--obviously now traffic is next to none because of the IP ban).
So why not put normal sales tax on it like with everything else? I do not see the difference between taxing Netflix or Only Fans.
Technofascist MAGA, evangelical Christofascists, and illiberal limousine neoliberals all agree in outlawing rights, and removing freedoms and privacy from individuals. They've lost the plot on the point of a free country while they try to impose their moral conformity on everyone else.
[dead]
[dead]