Legal Question - First Amendment
 

Hello,

Many American tube sites, tgps, blogs, etc. all share explicit content (porn) with anyone who visits their site. If a minor visits their site and downloads the explicit content (or just simply views it) how is this not transmission of explicit content to a minor?

I'm guessing there is a First Amendment argument...but I'd like to hear it.

Obviously the law permits this otherwise there wouldn't be so many porn sites out there...but I would like to know the defending argument.

Thanks!

Free Speech does not does not allow corruption of minors with explicate content.

I think the day you have to worry is when Google blocks explicate images to minors - otherwise it's selective enforcement.

Perhaps you have to knowingly do it...intend to do it.

But if a minor surfs Google Images and sees porn that's the fault of their guardian.

Very true about Google, thanks for the comment.

first, any legal advice or interpretations of the law found on GFY should be immediately suspect including mine because much to my dismay I skipped my constitutional law classes (and college altogether) having said that here is my belief.

If this was a valid issue it would be damn near impossible to enforce. Also paysite get away with providing hardcore images for free on their tour by use of a warning page with legal disclaimer on the root.

We assume other sites like TGPs as an example also have a valid warning page with legal disclaimer on it which covers our content on that site.

it's pretty much what has been required since the interwebs was born and has worked and protected everyone in adult for all that time :)

I hope my fairly ignorant view on this has helped answer your question some


spaz

hey spazlabz thanks for the reply.

i'm pretty sure the warning pages are a completely useless defense (I recall industry lawyer Larry Walters trying to push his date of birth script because of this).

but i forget the real reason...if anyone knows/can remember I'd love to hear it again.