'Invasive': ACLU attacks Supreme Court for full-on free speech attack

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Raw Story

June 27, 2025 3:42PM ET


Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law requiring users to share personal identification to view adult material online. The law, which mandates websites that host sexual content to require users to provide photo IDs or biometric scans to verify that they are over 18, was challenged by several adult websites and free speech organizations. They argued that it violated adult users' First Amendment rights.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines siding with Texas, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion that the law "only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults," and therefore did not require "strict scrutiny" from the Court.

But advocates for free speech and online security have warned that such laws—which have passed in 24 states—have the potential to be much more invasive, both to personal expression and privacy. Following the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) decried the Court's decision as "a blow to freedom of speech and privacy."

"The Supreme Court has departed from decades of settled precedents that ensured that sweeping laws purportedly for the benefit of minors do not limit adults' access to First Amendment-protected materials," said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU. "The legislature claims to be protecting children from sexually explicit materials, but the law will do little to block their access, and instead deters adults from viewing vast amounts of First Amendment-protected content."

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/invasive-surveillance-alarm-raised/

[hlthe2b]

1. Just thinking about the implementation, wouldn't most be very wary of providing id or registering with

verified information to access these sites? Is the real goal not to deter these sites to begin with--i.e., to implement a doctrine--religious or otherwise--to drive these sites off the web? I think most know it will only drive those who are determined to have access to this content to "black sites," where they are less likely to be officially identified but more likely to be targeted by criminal elements.

Admittedly, it took me a bit to see where ACLU was going with this 1st amendment case, but I do see the potential "theocratic" agenda against "speech" that may encourage behavior with which these powerful groups disagree. And, yes, the "slippery slope." Every day, another SCOTUS decision that takes us further down a path of erosion from our once-democratic system...

[Grim Chieftain]

2. The ACLU is fearlessly fighting the good fight

No matter the battle, they are there, advocating for what is right. I'm proud to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

[delisen]

3. Part of Project 2025 agenda being supported by Supreme Court majority. nt

[moniss]

4. Years ago the courts began allowing the government

to condition the ability to speak at a governmental meeting by requiring the speaker to identify themselves and say where they live. A demonstration of that was at City Council Meetings in insular communities. If a person rose to give comment on a matter but was just an apartment dweller and not a property owner you would see City Council members and Mayors attack the person for not "being a taxpayer and having skin in the game" etc.

More ominously by requiring your name and address it allowed those same people to use the local police for off the record background checks and it also allowed the cronies in the local school administration to target the children of those speakers who might oppose a corrupt action by a City government.

People may think it doesn't happen. I witnessed it being done to people.

[OldBaldy1701E]

10. Oh, it happens all the time.

Way more than those who have never had to deal with it would believe anyway.

Never underestimate how low human beings can go.

[moniss]

11. Especially in smaller towns where

some people become entrenched in positions. It even goes to religion sometimes. I lived not far from a town that was overwhelmingly Catholic. Two parishes. One parish was the fancy gothic church and the members were all the white collar people. The other parish was in just a plain red brick building on grounds with a second red brick building that housed their school. That parish is where the "average" people in town were members.

I was just a boy from the country and I was not raised in any religion at all. So for me to now be a young adult and witnessing this town it was quite evident to me how this arrangement also affected them in other areas. If you ran for the City Council or Mayor it was openly discussed as to which parish you attended. Kids dating, selection by coaches for the high school teams etc. all through that screen.

There were also two other churches in town. One Methodist and one Baptist. Those members never stood a chance at anything.

[Grins]

5. "The Supreme Court has departed from decades of settled precedents..."

All according to plan…

Susan Collins must be so ‘concerned.’

[Evolve Dammit]

8. She might write a letter......

[Quanto Magnus]

6. SCOTUS (at least the fascist majority of the court) is only for free speech

when that speech is hate speech against brown people.

[Evolve Dammit]

7. ACLU is a good org. I need to do more.

[Angleae]

9. One (or more) of the blue states should pass a law requiring age verification to access Twitter and Truth Social