Justice Kagan has a good foundation for forging a path here. A long time ago, she wrote a very insightful article, published in the Chicago Law Review, about the real work content-based distinctions are doing in First Amendment law. Not too long, and worth the read.
The implicit idea that porn is harmful to minors but somehow not to "adults" is a fallacy being ignored by almost everybody. This is surely not an easy thing for the law to resolve, and marketing departments have been using sex to sell things for a hundred years.
Justice Kagan has a good foundation for forging a path here. A long time ago, she wrote a very insightful article, published in the Chicago Law Review, about the real work content-based distinctions are doing in First Amendment law. Not too long, and worth the read.
Thank you for the explanation. I haven’t seen any coverage of these arguments elsewhere.
Well. I have seen other coverage, but nothing as comprehensive and coherent.
Fifth Circuit, Texas state courts, Florida—the Confederacy is tenacious.
The implicit idea that porn is harmful to minors but somehow not to "adults" is a fallacy being ignored by almost everybody. This is surely not an easy thing for the law to resolve, and marketing departments have been using sex to sell things for a hundred years.
Great analysis!