1. Internet porn filters already exist. Would these bills automatically install one onto the browser of anyone trying to access porn in a relevant states? Not that I'm opposed - I obviously support the intent, as any moral person would - I just wonder how that would work.
2. "porn = speech" is one of the worst findings in the history of the Supreme Court. Hopefully, Trump fills the judiciary with enough conservative Catholics to overturn that precedent.
The Court hasn't made that finding have they? The precedent is the Miller test. But it is just very difficult in practice to come up with porn bans that don't also infringe on what is constitutionally protected, since the line here is so fuzzy and subjective.
Yes, I was being unfairly simplistic for rhetorical purposes. I'll own up to that.
