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.

The courts need to start sanctioning these mofos. Pay for your own color of law bullshit.

going nowhere…

You misspelled “their pockets”

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.

With the porn industry, even if you’re on top you’re still getting fucked.

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. 

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.

The lawyers.

I don’t know how old you are, nor should I, so I can’t do anything to stop you.

Hey, it’s not always greed that we give a pass! In the US we are also fantastically lenient with violence as well!

💀

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.”

Not to mention a federal law that seems to have bipartisan support.