Electronic Frontier Foundation: EFF has said time and again that age verification mandates are surveillance systems which undermine anonymity and privacy of all, don’t work as intended, and chill access to speech online. (1/4)

EFF has said time and again that age verification mandates are surveillance systems which undermine anonymity and privacy of all, don’t work as intended, and chill access to speech online. (1/4)

California Lawmakers Should Reject Mandatory Internet ID Checkswww.eff.org California lawmakers are debating an ill-advised bill that would require internet users to show their ID in order to look at sexually explicit content. EFF has sent a letter to California legislators

For decades courts have ruled that age verification schemes are unconstitutional, with a federal court blocking a new Mississippi law yesterday.

Federal judge halts Mississippi law requiring age verification for websitesapnews.com A federal judge has blocked a Mississippi law that would require users of websites and other digital services to verify their age.

Similarly last week, a federal court put an Indiana law, which would have required sites with more than 1/3rd content deemed “harmful to minors” to age verify, on hold as well, rightly citing how this regime both fails to protect children and burdens access to legitimate speech.

Federal judge halts Indiana law that would impose stricter age verification on adult websiteswww.wfyi.org An Indiana law requiring stricter age verification for adult websites will not take effect July 1 after a federal judge halted the law Friday, ruling it is likely unconstitutional.

Today, the California Senate Judiciary Committee will consider CA AB 3080, an Indiana-like age verification bill. We urge the committee to kill this bill and prevent the harms of age verification from being inflicted on Californian.

California Lawmakers Should Reject Mandatory Internet ID Checkswww.eff.org California lawmakers are debating an ill-advised bill that would require internet users to show their ID in order to look at sexually explicit content. EFF has sent a letter to California legislators

Registered speech is not free speech.

I get the argument against regulation of this sort. But it would be better received if it came with a solution (or a suggested one) to the flood of pornography on the internet and children's access to it, which is an actual problem. Every reply is just "better parents!!!". But that's unrealistic.

That's a fake problem pushed by scaremongering fasciats who label anything LGBTQ as "pornography"

"Better parents" is just a shallow answer for the underlying issue of many parents not having enough time for their children due to the vast majority of people just struggling to survive. A great many of today's ills could be resolved by addressing that problem first.

Devices already come with parental controls and filtering at the device level is a lot less problematic than the site level

Post