Latest news with #Republican-majority
NDTV
a day ago
- Business
- NDTV
US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Age-Check For Porn Sites
The US Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify visitors' ages, rejecting arguments that this violates free speech and boosting efforts to protect children from online sexual content. The court's decision will impact a raft of similar laws nationwide and could set the direction for internet speech regulation as concerns about the impact of digital life on society grow. Texas is one of about 20 US states to institute checks that porn viewers are over 18, which critics argue violate First Amendment free speech rights. Other countries such as France, Britain and Germany also enforce age-related access restrictions to adult websites, while companies like Meta are lobbying Washington lawmakers for age-based verification to be carried out by smartphone giants Apple and Google on their app stores. The Texas law was passed in 2023 by the state's Republican-majority legislature but was initially blocked after a challenge by an adult entertainment industry trade association. A federal district court sided with the trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, saying the law restricted adults' access to constitutionally protected content. But a conservative-dominated appeals court upheld the age verification requirement, prompting the pornography trade group to take its case to the Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority. Under the law, companies that fail to properly verify users' ages face fines up to $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 if a child is exposed to pornographic content as a result. To protect privacy, the websites aren't allowed to retain any identifying information obtained from users when verifying ages, and doing so could cost companies $10,000 daily in fines. During arguments in January before the Supreme Court, a lawyer representing the Free Speech Coalition said the law was "overly burdensome" and that its goal could be accomplished using content filtering programs. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the mother of seven children, took issue with the efficacy of content filtering, saying that from personal experience as a parent, such programs were difficult to maintain across the many types of devices used by kids. Barrett also asked the lawyer to explain why requesting age verification online is any different than doing so at a movie theater that displays pornographic movies. The lawyer for the Free Speech Coalition -- which includes the popular website Pornhub that has blocked all access in some states with age verification laws -- said online verification was different as it leaves a "permanent record" that could be a target for hackers. During the court's hearing of the case in January, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, both Republican appointees, seemed to suggest that advances in technology might justify reviewing online free speech cases. In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down, in an overwhelming 7-2 decision, a federal online age-verification law in what became a landmark free speech case that set a major precedent for the internet age.
France 24
a day ago
- Business
- France 24
US Supreme Court upholds Texas age-check for porn sites
The court's decision will impact a raft of similar laws nationwide and could set the direction for internet speech regulation as concerns about the impact of digital life on society grow. Texas is one of about 20 US states to institute checks that porn viewers are over 18, which critics argue violate First Amendment free speech rights. Other countries such as France, Britain and Germany also enforce age-related access restrictions to adult websites, while companies like Meta are lobbying Washington lawmakers for age-based verification to be carried out by smartphone giants Apple and Google on their app stores. The Texas law was passed in 2023 by the state's Republican-majority legislature but was initially blocked after a challenge by an adult entertainment industry trade association. A federal district court sided with the trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, saying the law restricted adults' access to constitutionally protected content. But a conservative-dominated appeals court upheld the age verification requirement, prompting the pornography trade group to take its case to the Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority. Under the law, companies that fail to properly verify users' ages face fines up to $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 if a child is exposed to pornographic content as a result. To protect privacy, the websites aren't allowed to retain any identifying information obtained from users when verifying ages, and doing so could cost companies $10,000 daily in fines. During arguments in January before the Supreme Court, a lawyer representing the Free Speech Coalition said the law was "overly burdensome" and that its goal could be accomplished using content filtering programs. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the mother of seven children, took issue with the efficacy of content filtering, saying that from personal experience as a parent, such programs were difficult to maintain across the many types of devices used by kids. Barrett also asked the lawyer to explain why requesting age verification online is any different than doing so at a movie theater that displays pornographic movies. The lawyer for the Free Speech Coalition -- which includes the popular website Pornhub that has blocked all access in some states with age verification laws -- said online verification was different as it leaves a "permanent record" that could be a target for hackers. During the court's hearing of the case in January, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, both Republican appointees, seemed to suggest that advances in technology might justify reviewing online free speech cases. In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down, in an overwhelming 7-2 decision, a federal online age-verification law in what became a landmark free speech case that set a major precedent for the internet age.
Int'l Business Times
a day ago
- Business
- Int'l Business Times
US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Age-check For Porn Sites
The US Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify visitors' ages, rejecting arguments that this violates free speech and boosting efforts to protect children from online sexual content. The court's decision will impact a raft of similar laws nationwide and could set the direction for internet speech regulation as concerns about the impact of digital life on society grow. Texas is one of about 20 US states to institute checks that porn viewers are over 18, which critics argue violate First Amendment free speech rights. Other countries such as France, Britain and Germany also enforce age-related access restrictions to adult websites, while companies like Meta are lobbying Washington lawmakers for age-based verification to be carried out by smartphone giants Apple and Google on their app stores. The Texas law was passed in 2023 by the state's Republican-majority legislature but was initially blocked after a challenge by an adult entertainment industry trade association. A federal district court sided with the trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, saying the law restricted adults' access to constitutionally protected content. But a conservative-dominated appeals court upheld the age verification requirement, prompting the pornography trade group to take its case to the Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority. Under the law, companies that fail to properly verify users' ages face fines up to $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 if a child is exposed to pornographic content as a result. To protect privacy, the websites aren't allowed to retain any identifying information obtained from users when verifying ages, and doing so could cost companies $10,000 daily in fines. During arguments in January before the Supreme Court, a lawyer representing the Free Speech Coalition said the law was "overly burdensome" and that its goal could be accomplished using content filtering programs. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the mother of seven children, took issue with the efficacy of content filtering, saying that from personal experience as a parent, such programs were difficult to maintain across the many types of devices used by kids. Barrett also asked the lawyer to explain why requesting age verification online is any different than doing so at a movie theater that displays pornographic movies. The lawyer for the Free Speech Coalition -- which includes the popular website Pornhub that has blocked all access in some states with age verification laws -- said online verification was different as it leaves a "permanent record" that could be a target for hackers. During the court's hearing of the case in January, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, both Republican appointees, seemed to suggest that advances in technology might justify reviewing online free speech cases. In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down, in an overwhelming 7-2 decision, a federal online age-verification law in what became a landmark free speech case that set a major precedent for the internet age.
CNBC
2 days ago
- Business
- CNBC
How the Republican megabill targets immigrant finances
A Republican megabill that lawmakers are trying to pass by the Fourth of July would clamp down on the finances of immigrant households, including those in the U.S. legally, economists and policy experts said. The legislation, championed by President Donald Trump, would restrict access to tax benefits like the child tax credit. Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have also included a tax on the money immigrants send abroad, called remittances, and a $1,000 fee for those who seek asylum. The provisions "make life harder for immigrants in the U.S., both legal and undocumented immigrants," said Tara Watson, director of the Center for Economic Security and Opportunity at the Brookings Institution. "I think this will make a significant difference" in their financial lives, Watson said. More from Personal Finance:GOP megabill proposes new Medicaid work requirementsHouse, Senate tax bills both end many clean energy creditsGOP bill may add to medical debt for households The Republican-majority House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said in a statement last month that some of the financial measures aim to make immigration services "self-sustaining." "This is about providing resources to enforce our immigration laws ... and implement responsible fiscal policy," the committee said. Republicans are cutting safety net spending more broadly to help finance their so-called one big beautiful bill, the centerpiece of which is a multitrillion-dollar package of tax cuts. The benefits of those largely accrue to wealthy households, data shows. The cuts also come as the Trump administration pursues an aggressive deportation agenda. The legislation is still in flux and differs somewhat between House and Senate versions. The Senate may vote on its measure as soon as this week. In some cases, GOP lawmakers may not be able to restrict benefits to the extent they'd like. For example, the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan procedural advisor, ruled in recent days that the GOP must strip a provision from the legislation that would curb some immigrants' eligibility for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, formerly known as food stamps. The parliamentarian also dealt a blow to Republicans' proposals to deny certain legal immigrants from federal health benefits, according to a Senate Budget Committee release on Thursday. The bill text included provisions to cut access to Medicaid, Medicare and Affordable Care Act insurance subsidies from refugees and individuals seeking asylum, among others. It's unclear how Republicans may alter the legislation to reconcile these rulings. Among the most impactful tax changes is one that would restrict the child tax credit, Watson said. A 2017 tax law enacted during Trump's first term barred parents from claiming the credit for children who don't have a Social Security number. The House and Senate would make this provision permanent, impacting an estimated 1 million children. GOP lawmakers would further cut access for kids whose parents don't have a Social Security number. The change would "exclusively" impact kids who are U.S. citizens or legal residents, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The House bill's language on this issue is stricter than the Senate, Watson said. In the House bill, kids would be ineligible for the credit if either of their parents doesn't have a Social Security number, she said. The Senate would allow a child to receive the benefit if at least one parent has a work-eligible SSN. The House bill's policy would cut access to about 4.5 million children with Social Security numbers, according to the Center for Migration Studies. The five states in which the largest estimated number of kids would be impacted are California (910,000), Texas (875,000), Florida (247,000), New York (226,000) and Illinois (196,000), the center said. "If a U.S. citizen is married to an undocumented immigrant, or if a citizen child has an undocumented parent, then the House bill considers the citizen to have forfeited their right to a range of tax breaks," ITEP researchers Carl Davis and Sarah Austin wrote in an analysis in May. Beyond the child tax credit, those also include existing tax breaks like the American Opportunity Tax Credit and Lifetime Learning Credit and new benefits proposed in the legislation, from so-called Trump accounts to tax breaks for tips and overtime, experts said. Many immigrants are members of such mixed-status families, Davis and Austin wrote. The policy debate comes as the Trump administration is trying to end birthright citizenship, the precedent that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically gets citizenship at birth. The Supreme Court is expected to soon rule on the policy. The House bill also requires all parents to file a joint tax return if they are married and claiming the child tax credit, according to the National Immigration Law Center. This provision would also impact nonimmigrant households in which married couples typically file separate tax returns, as happens if one spouse has substantial student loan debt or has been a victim of identity theft, for example, Davis and Austin wrote. Republicans would put a tax on "remittances." These are transfers of money such as earnings to family members and others abroad. Remittances have been "growing rapidly" and have become the largest source of foreign income for many developing countries, Dilip Ratha, lead economist for migration and remittances at the World Bank, wrote in 2023. India, Mexico, China, the Philippines and Pakistan are the top five recipients for global remittances, according to World Bank data from last year. The U.S. was the largest source of global remittances in 2023, it said. The House and Senate bills would put a 3.5% tax on remittances, to be paid by the sender. Such taxes would come on top of remittance fees that providers like banks or money transfer services like Western Union already charge to send money abroad electronically. Such fees can be high, perhaps 10% or more, Ratha wrote. There are some differences. For example, the House would require this tax for all noncitizens, while the Senate would do so for those without Social Security numbers, according to the National Immigration Law Center. Others would be able to claim a tax credit for any taxes they pay on remittances. The Senate and House bills would add fees for immigrants who apply for asylum or interact with many other levers of the U.S. immigration system. According to the National Immigration Law Center, the fees include, among others: These are minimum fees without waivers, and the legislation provides for regular annual increases, according to the National Immigration Law Center.
Time Magazine
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Time Magazine
Lawmakers Seek to Limit Trump From Dragging U.S. Into Israel-Iran War
As the war between Israel and Iran rages on for a fifth day, it is unclear whether the Trump Administration is preparing to intervene militarily. On Monday, U.S. forces were sent to the Middle East, ostensibly for 'defensive' purposes, as Donald Trump left the G7 summit early and warned Tehran to evacuate. But whether the U.S. gets more involved than it already is, some members of Congress from both parties argue, is not a decision that should be up to the President. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) announced plans to introduce a resolution on Tuesday that asserts the requirement of Congress' approval if Trump wants to commit armed forces to military action in the region. 'This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution,' Massie posted on X. The resolution has already gained the support of progressive Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who replied 'Signing on' to Massie's post. It's also not the first proposal by a lawmaker seeking to limit U.S. military engagement in the conflict. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced a war powers resolution in the upper chamber on Monday that would terminate the unauthorized use of U.S. armed forces against Iran, given that there has not been a declaration of war, which only Congress can issue. War powers resolutions are 'privileged,' meaning that the Senate is required to promptly debate and vote on the resolution. 'I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict,' Kaine said in a statement. 'This resolution will ensure that if we decide to place our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress.' Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also introduced a separate bill, cosponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), on Monday that would prohibit the use of federal funds for 'any use of military force in or against Iran' without congressional approval, with the exception of self-defense. 'Another war in the Middle East could cost countless lives, waste trillions more dollars and lead to even more deaths, more conflict, and more displacement,' Sanders said in a statement. 'I will do everything that I can as a Senator to defend the Constitution and prevent the US from being drawn into another war.' While the measures seeking to constrain Trump are unlikely to pass in the Republican-majority House or Senate, proponents have said that they want to force lawmakers to show where they stand on an issue where the public has been very clear. According to a University of Maryland poll in May, before Israel launched its strikes against Iran last Friday, only 14% of U.S. respondents across political parties supported 'Military action in attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear program.' 'It's time for every member to go on record,' Khanna posted. 'Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?' What the Constitution says War powers are divided between Congress and the President, according to the Constitution. While the President is named the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, only Congress has the authority to decide whether the U.S. should go to war—either a total war or more limited uses of force. The President retains inherent defensive powers to use military force without congressional authorization if the U.S. is attacked, but congressional approval is still needed for a prolonged war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 provided further guidance on the President's war powers, including that the President must have congressional approval for the use of force abroad except for certain circumstances like safely removing troops or rescuing Americans overseas. Nevertheless, the executive branch has expanded its view of the President's defensive war powers, most notably with its interpretations of the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations of Use of Military Force (AUMF). Congress passed the 2001 AUMF after the September 11 attacks to allow the use of force against entities that 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided' in the attacks or 'harbored such organizations or persons.' The 2002 AUMF authorized military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq government 'to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq' and was used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But the authorizations have been criticized for effectively giving Presidents a ' blank check ' to direct military actions without congressional approval far beyond their original intended scope. There have been multiple unsuccessful efforts by both parties to repeal the authorizations, including by Kaine in 2023 with the support of then-Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), who said at the time: 'I think the fact that you have a lot of Republicans who are very skeptical of continuing to provide a blank check here I think is a good sign.' When Trump in his first term authorized the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, Defense Department general counsel explained at the time that it distilled the President's constitutional and statutory authority to direct military action into a broad two-part test: first, 'whether the President could reasonably determine that the action serves important national interests,' and second, whether the military action does not necessarily 'bring the nation into the kind of protracted conflict that would rise to the level of a 'war.'' Party splits Conflict with Iran has divided Democrats and Republicans —not along party lines but within them. While some 'America First' voices have rallied against direct U.S. involvement, Trump's MAGA camp also includes war hawks like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has said on X that, if negotiations fail, the U.S. should 'go all-in to help Israel finish the job.' 'If diplomacy is not successful, and we are left with the option of force, I would urge President Trump to go all in to make sure that, when this operation is over, there's nothing left standing in Iran regarding their nuclear program,' Graham said on CBS on Sunday. 'If that means providing bombs, provide bombs. … If it means flying with Israel, fly with Israel.' Nine lawmakers led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a pro-Israel Democrat, signed onto a letter imploring Trump to apply 'crushing diplomatic pressure in addition to Israel's military pressure' on Iran towards zero nuclear enrichment. Trump, who also faces pressure from Israel to join the war, has continued to urge finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict, but he's also expressed the possibility of U.S. involvement if Iran retaliates against U.S. targets. 'If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran,' Trump posted on Truth Social on Saturday night, 'the full strength and might of the US Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before.'
