By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the 2020 election, numerous corporations and wealthy donors suspended contributions to Trump-aligned causes. Despite many resuming donations, Trump maintains a list of those who did not, leveraging his continued fundraising success to reward loyalists and pressure former contributors. This financial power allows him to influence Republican politics, act as a kingmaker, and potentially deter opposition to his agenda. His message emphasizes his continued success despite the lack of support from these entities.
Read the original article here
Alito’s question regarding the presence of essays on Pornhub, posed during a Supreme Court hearing, sparked immediate and widespread reactions. The sheer absurdity of the inquiry, suggesting a lack of familiarity with the platform, drew significant attention and criticism. It highlighted a disconnect between the Justice’s understanding of modern online platforms and the realities of the internet age.
The question prompted immediate speculation about the Justice’s technological literacy and whether his lack of familiarity with Pornhub reflected a broader ignorance of the digital landscape. This raised concerns about the ability of the Supreme Court to address contemporary issues effectively when justices seem to lack even a basic understanding of prevalent online environments.
Many commentators pointed out the ironic nature of the question, suggesting that the focus on the existence of essays on a pornography site seemed to imply that only “serious” content warrants free speech protection. This interpretation underscored a potential misalignment between the Justice’s perspective and the principles enshrined in the First Amendment, which is meant to protect a wide spectrum of expression.
The incident fueled wider discussions about the broader implications of the legal cases under consideration. The debate centered on the implications of setting a high standard for free speech protection, as such standards could potentially be used to criminalize forms of expression that are currently only criticized or condemned. This, in turn, raised important questions about the role of the Supreme Court in protecting free speech in the digital era.
The conversation further broadened to encompass the political context surrounding the legal cases, connecting them to wider right-wing efforts targeting various groups and forms of expression. The suggested link between the cases and initiatives like Project 2025 raised concern that efforts to regulate pornography could be part of a broader campaign aimed at suppressing other forms of expression considered objectionable by certain segments of the population.
Many online comments mocked the Justice’s apparent unfamiliarity with Pornhub, highlighting the incongruity between his position and his apparent lack of knowledge about commonly used online platforms. The comedic potential of the situation was widely exploited, with jokes and memes circulating online. However, beneath the humor lay a more serious underlying concern regarding the competence and preparedness of justices to address the challenges of the digital age.
Some commenters highlighted the irony of a Supreme Court justice questioning the content of a pornography site, given the widely perceived hypocrisy of such a question coming from a member of an institution that holds significant power in shaping legal and social norms. The incongruity generated a significant amount of online commentary and discussion.
Beyond the immediate amusement, the incident highlighted a significant gap between the technological understanding of some Supreme Court justices and the digital realities of modern society. This prompted calls for the Supreme Court to adapt and embrace a more technocratic approach, including suggestions for age limits or other criteria for justices to ensure they remain informed about modern technological trends and their societal implications. The lack of such modern understanding could significantly impair the Court’s ability to make informed and relevant decisions on matters of crucial significance in the digital age.
The incident also underscored the need for a broader understanding of the content found on online platforms, moving beyond simplistic categorizations. The variety of content available on sites like Pornhub—ranging from explicit material to seemingly unrelated videos or information—challenges conventional notions of what constitutes online content and how such platforms function. The focus on whether or not “essays” exist on Pornhub overlooked the diversity of content and the ways in which people engage with it.
Finally, the entire situation served as a stark reminder of the importance of media literacy and critical thinking. The response to Alito’s question sparked a vigorous discussion on the importance of informed engagement with online information and the dangers of drawing conclusions based on superficial or incomplete understanding. The event served as an example of how even high-profile figures might not always possess the necessary understanding to engage effectively with the online world, and the need for everyone, regardless of position, to approach digital information with a balanced and critical eye.