Thanks to the retards in charge of texas you may now require an ID to post in any site deemed "harmful to children"

https://www.xbiz.com/news/290600/fsc-unpacks-scotus-age-verification-ruling-in-webinar

vpns also illegal

>“Don’t expect protection,” he advised. “Do your best to try to cover your ass. That may be geoblocking a state, that may be doing some sort of AV … If somebody uses a VPN and gets onto your site in Texas, could you be sued by the AG? Sure.”

>Stabile also warned that while some AV laws specify that a minimum percentage of adult material on a site is needed to trigger application of the law, other versions apply to any amount of adult content, giving states and private parties “a wide berth to go after this type of content.”

in other words the ruling allows for laws to make sure there is zero content harmful to children, such as this site for having a /pol/ board

Don't forget that Trump is pushing Palantir so they can have these kinds of databases

>“Not only do you need to cover whatever third party you are using to do AV, but you need to make sure your arbitration clauses are ironclad,” she stressed. “If somebody in a state with a private enforcement law tries to sue you, you are better off in arbitration.”

Stabile warned, “When you walk into court, you’ve already lost.”

there is no room for doubt, if the state requires AV, your site may as well need to be blocked

>>509332734 (OP)
I'll leave this here
https://privacyspreadsheet.com/messaging-apps
https://seachan.org/board/pol

>>509332734 (OP)
This will hurt Texas financially. For being a freedom loving state they sure are implementing a lot of rules and restrictions.

>>509335069
Tight now every site shoudl block South dakota

>The South Dakota law, enforced by the South Dakota Attorney General, allows for civil lawsuits against any website containing any amount of material “harmful to minors,” abandoning the 33 ⅓ percent standard used in other states.

that means that anyone can sue this site right now

>>509335069
>>509335415
What isn't harmful to minors at this point, aside from the local Rabbi?

>>509332734 (OP)
Wait. The supreme court ruled that they were allowed ro break the first amendment and require a license for it? Yet they haven’t reviewed the previous ruling on porn being free speech at all have they. Typical jewish problem/reaction/solution and hardly anyone sees it. The right thing to do would be to revoke porn’s “free speech” qualification, not to trash the first amendment by allowing a fee and tax to be placed on what law says is free speech.