Lily philips and the disgrace of pornography

[ken_sylvania]

Yes, children do not have a Constitutional right to speak out in or otherwise disrupt my class without my permission. I can discipline them for doing so without being afraid of running afoul of their constitutional free speech rights.

And schools commonly do restrict the messages that students are allowed to wear as part of school dress codes. My school bans students from wearing any alcohol, tobacco, or drug messages on their clothes. As well as any gang messages. And the school I used to work at in Texas prohibited students from having any visible tattoos. They had to keep them covered up with clothing or bandages or something.

Can't a college have those same restrictions on their adult students?

Private colleges can do whatever they want. They are not the government.

I'm not sure that a public university can ban students from wearing a Budweiser hoodie or baseball cap like most public high schools around the country do. Or that any public university would ever bother to try.

Definitely not my area of expertise. I would have assumed that any university receiving federal funding would be subject to the same freedom-of-speech rules as public universities.

Wasn't there some for lawsuit that went all the way up to SCOTUS back in maybe the '70s where some children wanted to wear armbands to protest the war. I thought the school was making the argument that children have less freedom of speech than adults do, but that the school lost. I haven't really researched it though.

[Ken]

I'm not sure that a public university can ban students from wearing a Budweiser hoodie or baseball cap like most public high schools around the country do. Or that any public university would ever bother to try.

Can a public school do so with pupils once they turn 18?

The Supreme Court has never specifically addressed that question. Maybe some day an 18 year old will take a public school dress code to court and then we will find out.

However generally speaking, the Supreme Court has said exactly what I said. That minors do retain some First Amendment rights, but not so extensively as do adults. And that goes for every First Amendment right, not just free speech. For example, your minor children do have some religious rights. But they don't have the right to join a cult without your permission. Or frankly even attend a different church without your permission. Or attend a political protest without your permission.

[JohnH]

The Supreme Court has never specifically addressed that question. Maybe some day an 18 year old will take a public school dress code to court and then we will find out.

However the Supreme Court has said exactly what I said. That minors do retain some First Amendment rights, but not so extensively as do adults. And that goes for every First Amendment right, not just free speech. For example, your minor children do have some religious rights. But they don't have the right to join a cult without your permission. Or frankly even attend a different church without your permission. Or attend a political protest without your permission.

That's not actually the case; minors are instead viewed as not necessarily having agency, but minors do have complete freedom of religion. The Supreme Court affirmed in Wisconsin v. Yoder that there is a difficult-to-rebut presumption that parents act in the best interest of their children, and thus they exercise religious freedom on their child's behalf.

Obviously, a minor child age 2 doesn't have any agency to "join a cult" or "attend a different church". But they still have absolute religious freedom. And they also have freedom of speech, but neither they nor their parents have any "freedom of speech" to produce and sell pornography.

[Ken]

The Supreme Court has never specifically addressed that question. Maybe some day an 18 year old will take a public school dress code to court and then we will find out.

However the Supreme Court has said exactly what I said. That minors do retain some First Amendment rights, but not so extensively as do adults. And that goes for every First Amendment right, not just free speech. For example, your minor children do have some religious rights. But they don't have the right to join a cult without your permission. Or frankly even attend a different church without your permission. Or attend a political protest without your permission.

That's not actually the case; minors are instead viewed as not necessarily having agency, but minors do have complete freedom of religion. The Supreme Court affirmed in Wisconsin v. Yoder that there is a difficult-to-rebut presumption that parents act in the best interest of their children, and thus they exercise religious freedom on their child's behalf.

Obviously, a minor child age 2 doesn't have any agency to "join a cult" or "attend a different church". But they still have absolute religious freedom. And they also have freedom of speech, but neither they nor their parents have any "freedom of speech" to produce and sell pornography.

Same principle applies to minor children in school. The adults in the public school are acting under the doctrine of "in loco parentis" or in place of the parent or as you put it "in the best interests of the child". And in doing so are entitled to restrict and limit the behaviors and rights of children (including their free speech rights) in ways that they could not do for adults.

[JohnH]

Same principle applies to minor children in school. The adults in the public school are acting under the doctrine of "in loco parentis" or in place of the parent or as you put it "in the best interests of the child". And in doing so are entitled to restrict and limit the behaviors and rights of children (including their free speech rights) in ways that they could not do for adults.

Agreed, but the doctrine of "in loco parentis" applies to colleges as well, where presumably nearly all of the pupils are adults, although overall there is a gradual trend away from this.

None of this means that children don't have freedom of speech, and in particular, an 18 year old at a public school doesn't somehow have more speech rights than a 17 year old does. Can you find an example to the contrary?

[Ken]

Same principle applies to minor children in school. The adults in the public school are acting under the doctrine of "in loco parentis" or in place of the parent or as you put it "in the best interests of the child". And in doing so are entitled to restrict and limit the behaviors and rights of children (including their free speech rights) in ways that they could not do for adults.

Agreed, but the doctrine of "in loco parentis" applies to colleges as well, where presumably nearly all of the pupils are adults, although overall there is a gradual trend away from this.

None of this means that children don't have freedom of speech, and in particular, an 18 year old at a public school doesn't somehow have more speech rights than a 17 year old does. Can you find an example to the contrary?

Colleges actually sometimes use "in loco parentis" in the opposite direction. To allow things like student drinking on campus that would otherwise be illegal in a more public space.

As for your question about 17 and 18 year old free speech rights. The 18 year old can buy, sell, and create porn. The 17 year old cannot.

[JohnH]

As for your question about 17 and 18 year old free speech rights. The 18 year old can buy, sell, and create porn. The 17 year old cannot.

That's begging the question. Can you point to anything ELSE?

And no, I don't think your school would allow 18 year olds to buy, sell, and produce pornography at school, and I bet they don't allow 17 year olds to either. I am asking for an explicit example of a freedom of speech that 17 year olds don't have that 18 year olds do, and that is not related to pornography.

[Szdfan]

Yes, and the tobacco industry argued for a long time that people had an “individual right” to choose to smoke (and become addicted to cigarettes).

The government didn't criminalize tobacco use. It educated, regulated, and placed restrictions on marketing, especially toward minors.

There’s a big difference between public health regulation and criminalization.

Adults can still choose to smoke, drink, gamble, and yes, watch or participate in pornography — not because those things are moral or risk-free, but because consent and personal autonomy matter, even when we’re talking about behavior others may find harmful or wrong.

The government criminalized selling cigarettes to adults. It’s illegal to sell or give them to someone 18-20.

So no, adults can’t choose to smoke or drink until they’re 21, and it’s entirely illegal to sell or give tobacco or alcohol to someone under 21 (in most states).

Regulating who can sell something isn’t the same as criminalizing its use.

Adults over 21 are still free to smoke, drink, or gamble if they choose. The law puts restrictions around distribution and marketing, especially toward minors, but it doesn’t throw adults in prison for using these products.

There’s a real legal and moral difference between protecting vulnerable groups and criminalizing private adult behavior. You keep ignoring that distinction.

[Szdfan]

Why do you oppose criminalizing pornography, but support criminalizing child pornography? This seems a clear cut case of allowing society to shape your morals.

Child pornography is illegal because it involves the direct exploitation and abuse of a minor — a person who cannot legally consent. That’s not about moral discomfort. It’s about violated rights and bodily autonomy.

You can believe that pornography is morally wrong and still understand that, legally, adults are allowed to consent to things you may find immoral. That’s the difference between a moral framework and a legal system based on individual rights.

Children don’t have the freedom of speech?

Child pornography isn’t illegal because of speech. It’s illegal because it involves the sexual exploitation of a minor who cannot legally consent. That’s a violation of bodily autonomy and a direct harm.

That’s categorically different from adults choosing to participate in or consume legal pornography. One involves exploitation without capacity for consent -- the other involves consensual behavior among adults, even if it is immoral.

[JohnH]

Regulating who can sell something isn’t the same as criminalizing its use.

Adults over 21 are still free to smoke, drink, or gamble if they choose. The law puts restrictions around distribution and marketing, especially toward minors, but it doesn’t throw adults in prison for using these products.

There’s a real legal and moral difference between protecting vulnerable groups and criminalizing private adult behavior. You keep ignoring that distinction.

It’s criminal for minors to buy and to drink alcohol, although it’s rarely enforced. It’s also illegal for an 18 year old to share alcohol with other 18 year olds.