• @qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1122 years ago

    The sicko in me hopes they spend the next two weeks linking every policymaker in the state to their pornography habits and just dump the whole dataset online. Yeah, it would probably counterproductive and not great for democracy but I wouldn’t it be the sickest burn of all time?

    • @psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      912 years ago

      Ironically it would be so much easier to do that if they actually implemented the law they’re suing over, which demands they record the ID of everyone who uses the site.

      • @orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        302 years ago

        Hmm, the article is a little confusing, but it sounds like they’re mostly just complaining about the age verification, not really suing over that specifically. The real sticking point, and the one they actually stand a good chance of winning in court is about the warning they’re being required to display that’s both libelous and factually false. Texas for better or worse is within their rights to require age verification, even the very odious version of it being proposed that would require collecting state IDs, so it’s unlikely that they would actually win if that was their only issue with the law. Fortunately Texas (and others) massively overstepped by trying to slap a health and safety warning a la cigarette packages onto porn sites since they let a bunch of nutty politicians write the text of the message rather than actual medical professionals (probably because they couldn’t find any respectable medical professional that would endorse their wacky notions).

        • pjhenry1216
          link
          fedilink
          -52 years ago

          Not really. It does kind of tread on the first amendment. Like, imagine I wasn’t allowed to say something to you because the government doesn’t allow me to. What does that sound like? Like, you can’t put barriers on free speech.

          • @Stuka@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            This is a 5th grade understanding of the 1st amendment. Good job, now let’s work on the adult one.

      • @qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        Exactly. Malicious compliance, while reminding people exactly why they shouldn’t be so quick to give up their anonymity on the internet.

          • @WarmSoda@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            I’m not a member of the house or Senate so I don’t know what they can do. But I’m sure they can have as many open doors as they’re like.

    • flipht
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      I see what you’re saying about it not being good for democracy…we shouldn’t have politicians making decisions based on their personal use, and trying to avoid scrutiny of that use…but at the same time, we have that anyway. Honestly, at this point, burn it all down. Make the entire apparatus of government so transparent that the shitheels currently in office can’t justify staying on. Make it to where the only people who can function in elected positions are political monks.

    • Uranium3006
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      I strongly support this and would activly do it if I had the means