Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
💰 Grifter"Mad at the Internet" - a/k/a My Psychotherapy Sessions
Call the American a retard, a redneck or fat and it will run off him like water off a raincoat. But call him brown and he will reply: "Oy vey, my clitty is leaking"
0:05
Sorry for derailing your shitty butifel thred YET AGAIN, Jersh. Suffah!
Hey jersh, you said before you have audio adhd. Tell me, when you watch a TV show or something and it's sped up slightly does that piss you off (you know pal to ntsc speedup for some shows) because I swear anytime that happens when I watch some tv shows it peeves me
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Texas to continue to enforce, at least for now, a law that requires app stores to verify its buyers’ ages and obtain parental consent for minors to download apps and to purchase paid content within those apps. In a pair of brief, unsigned orders issued on Monday afternoon, the justices turned down requests to reinstate orders by a federal judge in Austin that barred the state from implementing the law. There were no public dissents from the orders.
The law at the center of the dispute is the Texas App Store Accountability Act, also known as SB 2420. There are two separate sets of challengers in the case. The first set, led by a group known as Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, which says that its members “use mobile apps to teach other kids how to get involved in policymaking,” went to federal court last October to challenge the law before it could go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026. The second challenger, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group that represents (among others) app stores and app developers, filed a similar challenge the same day. In both cases, the challengers argue (among other things) that SB 2420 violates the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman issued an order in December that temporarily blocked the state from enforcing SB 2420. But last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit put Pitman’s orders on hold, prompting the challengers to come to the Supreme Court a few days later.
In their filing asking the Supreme Court to reinstate Pitman’s orders, the students told the justices that the 5th Circuit’s decision “would render virtually the entire internet—not to mention the distribution of every book, newspaper, magazine, movie, or record album—‘commercial speech’ the government could more readily ban, restrict, edit, or compel. That is clearly wrong.” Moreover, they noted, Texas already shields children from accessing adult content online, in a separate law that the Supreme Court upheld last year. Therefore, the students said, SB 2420’s stated goal of protecting them “from ‘accessing harmful or inappropriate content’ … is not a valid government interest.”
In its own brief, the CCIA argued that the 5th Circuit’s decision “has upset the status quo by allowing the Act to be enforced for the first time, exposing app stores and millions of app developers to potential liability” and subjecting them to “enormous and unrecoverable compliance costs.” And in any event, the group added, the app stores that the CCIA’s members operate already “provide various, voluntary tools that enable parents to control their children’s exposure to apps and content.”
Texas countered that SB 2420 regulates commercial transactions, rather than speech – specifically, the conditions in which young people can agree to contractual terms and conditions required to downland an app. “In the same way that the State can deny drivers’ licenses to children under sixteen,” it argued, “even though some fourteen-year-olds may wish to drive to a bookstore and purchase a book, the State can restrict children’s downloads of software applications to mobile devices as a product category, even if some children may wish to use applications to engage in expressive conduct.”
Moreover, the state continued, because SB 2420 regulates all apps, “regardless of their content,” the district court applied the wrong constitutional test to determine that the law violates the First Amendment. Pitman should have applied, at most, a less stringent one, known as intermediate scrutiny, the state wrote. And the law can pass that test, the state asserted: as the court of appeals held, “‘Requiring age verification, parental consent, and app-related content ratings likely directly and materially advances Texas’s substantial interest in protecting children’s data, safety, and privacy in a digital world.’”
Finally, the state said, at the very least, Pitman’s orders were the kind of “universal injunction” that the court barred last year in its decision in Trump v. CASA, because they prohibit the state “from enforcing S. B. 2420 against anyone, not just the Plaintiffs.”
"
