SoylentNews

owl [soylentnews.org] writes:

Using “Protect the children!” as their rallying cry, red states are enacting digital pornography restrictions. Texas’s effort, H.B. 1181, requires commercial pornographic websites—and others, as we’ll see shortly—to verify that their users are adults, and to display state-drafted warnings about pornography’s alleged health dangers. In late August, a federal district judge blocked the law from taking effect. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit expedited Texas’s appeal, and it just held oral argument. This law, or one of the others like it, seems destined for the Supreme Court.

So continues what the Washington Post, in the headline of a 1989 op-ed by the columnist Nat Henthoff, once called “the eternal war against pornography.”

It’s true that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity—which the Supreme Court defines as “prurient” and “patently offensive” material devoid of “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Like many past anti-porn crusaders, however, Texas’s legislators blew past those confines. H.B. 1181 targets material that is obscene to minors. Because “virtually all salacious material” is “prurient, offensive, and without value” to young children, the district judge observed, H.B. 1181 covers “sex education [content] for high school seniors,” “prurient R-rated movies,” and much else besides. Texas’s attorneys claim that the state is going after “teen bondage gangbang” films, but the law they’re defending sweeps in paintings like Manet’s Olympia (1863) [googleusercontent.com]:

Incidentally, this portrait appears—along with other nudes—in a recent Supreme Court opinion.

Original Submission