Free Speech Coalition

... happens all the time

But shout out to the Free Speech Coalition.

Yes.

Shout out.

It's a problem, it's a huge problem.

But the states are still winning, right? We won in Free Speech Coalition versus Paxton, which was age verification for pornography.

We're winning on the App Store Accountability Act.

And right now, I think we have a chance to win on age verification for social media platforms, you know, to require parental consent as a law in Nebraska, right? You know, that has been sued.

Possession of these explicit and disgusting images are not going to stop them from going out and victimizing a child.

So the appeals court said that it was bound by the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Ashcroft versus the Free Speech Coalition.

In that ruling, they struck down restrictions covering sexually explicit depictions of fictional children when no actual minors were exploited in their production.

That had to do with drawings that were being produced, not artificially intelligent generated images that were being modeled on real depictions of actual abuse.

Now, two judges expressed serious concerns about applying this nearly 25-year-old precedent to the modern technology of A.I., Indeed, in Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of First Amendment protections for virtual CSAM.

But that was nearly 25 years ago, and the image generation technology available today was likely unimaginable back then, Judge John Lee wrote.

So given the relentless advancement in artificial intelligence models, we have some concerns about the line these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves.

So the case that we're dealing with today follows pretty naturally from earlier Supreme Court case law suggesting that you can't have a statutory prohibition dealing on with virtual child sexual abuse material.

That's a case called Free Speech Coalition against Ashcroft, and it's around 20 years old.

Now, the question that we're confronted with now is whether technological conditions have changed such that we should revise the analysis.

And so top of mind for the judges writing that opinion and for other commentators is, for example, whether hyper-realistic imagery that is a result of technical progress is now posing a different and greater challenge than the types of imagery that were at issue in past decisions years ago.

Well, I know the US American porn industry has a very powerful lobby.

I think one of their biggest organizations is even called the Free Speech Coalition.

Very deceptive name.

And we'll touch on that as we go through what some technology experts have been writing on this court decision.

The decision stems from two pieces of legal precedent handed down long before accessible generative AI was a glimmer in anyone's eye.

The first, Stanley v. Georgia, is a case from 1969 which affirms that individuals have a First Amendment right to possess obscenity in the privacy of their home.

The second is Ashcroft Feed Free Speech Coalition, 2002, in which the Supreme Court struck down parts of a statute that extended child pornography prohibitions to a broad category of non-actual child imagery, including wholly computer-generated depictions and adult performers made to appear underage.

The court reasoned that the statute swept in expression that records no crime and creates no victims by its

And apparently this banking discrimination is a very real, very terrifying thing.

A user linked to research from the Free Speech Coalition and big banks absolutely shut down accounts for adult workers.

It's

systemic.

And I'll talk to you more about that later.

She was also the president of the Free Speech Coalition.

She debated, uh, women against pornography across college campuses and lecture circuits on pretty much every major TV talk show in the '80s.

And in 1976, she made her first film, called The Opening of Misty Beethoven, which to this day is considered a porno chic classic.