I don’t think kids should be watching adult material. At the same time, it’s also true that there have been people trying to outright criminalize porn since its existence. I feel like this sort of law might be a way for those who want to ban it entirely to get their foot in the door and chip away at the constitutional protections like they did with abortion. It’s not unreasonable to think that could happen.
Just like no one want to take your guns no one wants to take your porn. So funny how the wings swap positions over what constitutes common sense laws. Let’s just have no laws for porn or guns. Problems solved and who cares about kids if it will cause minor inconveniences to adults anyway? F them. Since nothing is full proof let’s just do nothing. T&Ps y’all. Snowflakes the whole lot of you.
I was not arguing that. I was suggesting that policy making internet porn less accessible for minors to a similar level of television porn is sensible policy in the sense that it actually has the potential of being effective. There are easy workarounds for regional bans and age verifications. I hadn't thought as far ahead as First Amendment issues. But I don't see how there could be any issues if they're simply treated the same as say adult film theaters, dirty television channels, pornographic magazines, etc. All of which have policy measures in place to minimize access to children. Of course there is a line that may create First Amendment issues, but it's not clear where that line is. But either way, I was not arguing that the only access to porn would be "paid access." I was arguing that restricting all "internet" porn behind a paywall which also requires age verification is a more effective way of limiting access to pornography for people who are underage. That's one method of pornography consumption that is otherwise absurdly easy to access. I'm not sure anyone here is advocating for an outright ban on pornography. We're just brainstorming ways to avoid minors from accessing it.
The problem is that this is anything but easy these days. And it's a lot harder to take a computer away from a middle school/high school kid these days because it's become a necessity to stay competitive.
Not really. People are willing to inconvenience others for safety just not themselves. Guns, porn, whatever. Let’s not have anyone make any small sacrifices.
Oh that’s not even the tip of the iceberg. I shake my head in disbelief when parents tell me with a straight face that they’ve restricted their kid from the internet. Kids can have a dozen devices you don’t know about. At a friends house, in a baggie buried under a tree at the park, under their mattress, behind the furnace. A good parent assumes they cannot ban their kid from the internet & goes from there. As a fellow recently told me, parenting is not for Pu....
Last I checked, porn wasn't slaughtering kids in school. When you burden rights, you have to justify it. Can you not see that there are stronger justifications for laws restricting access to guns than there are for laws restricting access to porn? This is just a cartoonish argument. Start using some of that common sense you keep talking about.
That's fair. Easy is an overstatement. But if we're all acknowledging that kids are smart and will find their way around it, what's the point of these laws? Did you watch porn when you were a minor? Do you think it scarred you for life? End of the day, the burden has to fall on the parents to navigate these issues. The government isn't going to solve this problem.
But it’s a huge sacrifice that an adult might need to spend 5 mintues more to verify they are an adult so they can get their porn at home quick and easy. SMH.
The sacrifice is having to choose between not being able to access porn and giving my personally identifying information to companies I don't trust (information that could be sold or stolen). It's even worse for people who might have greater interests in privacy than I do (because they have embarrassing fetishes or are closeted gay people, for example). It's very easy to see how hackers could steal that information and then use it to blackmail people. It's hard to respect your side of the argument when you're so nonchalant about burdening people's rights and the damage these laws can cause. It comes off as if you don't like porn and see this as a convenient way to keep adults away from it. Of course, that's exactly the intention of these sorts of laws, no matter how much the right-wingers pushing them pretend they're about PROTECTING CHILDREN!!!!
I personally have no categorical desire to ban either guns or porn and am fine with both being regulated to some extent (though I don’t view them as equally dangerous), especially when the health of kids is at issue. There are Americans who would ban all guns if they had the power, but they clearly don’t; our gun laws are clearly going in the other direction. We can’t even agree on bump stocks and constitutional carry is taking over. The people who are most opposed to abortion rights and privacy rights, porn, contraception, IVF, gay rights, and all these other cultural issues (mostly involving sex, religion, and birth rates) have far more political power and support in the courts than the would-be gun grabbers.
Straw man. I didn’t equate the impact of getting shot to seeing porn. Age verification directly keeps porn to adults. Gun control laws don’t directly keep killers from shooting kids. If implemented correctly one result is a direct impact the other is seven degrees of separation correlated in some giant studies with a million other variations that may or may not have an impact… but you are willing to trade of inconvenience for guns cause you don’t like them. Not for porn though cause you do. I think that is hypocrisy. I can guarantee you age verification would be more effective at keeping porn to adults than banning guns that look like assault rifles would be saving kids lives. Why do you keep inserting personal attacks? It’s just an interesting topic to debate.
Would not disagree with anything you said. I just don’t think that it’s good community to have zero inconveniences to create safe spaces for groups such as kids. I’m fine with showing my ID for beer, porn, and jumping over a few hoops for a gun. But guns nor porn nor abortions should be banned. My wife was refused alcohol a few years back cuz of no id. She’s lovely but doesn’t look close to 21. It was an inconvenience.
I don't mind showing my ID for alcohol either, though when I've been carded, they just glance at it. I'm not sure if they save it in a database or who all might have access to it. I do know that my pharmacy has scanned my ID depending upon the prescription. I at least presume that my doctor, pharmacy, bank, and CPA are set up to secure our information as much as possible. I'm frankly not clear about the process Texas is demanding above and beyond what other states require, but it seems that Texas doesn't have a third party process set up like other states. Is the goal to make it harder to comply so these companies stay out of Texas entirely? According to the article, there's a quarter million dollar penalty each time a minor sees something pornographic. That seems highly punitive and is part of why I question what Texas is doing relative to other states. Continuing with the analogy of purchasing alcohol, there are obviously many teens and young adults who use fake IDs to get into bars and to purchase and consume alcohol. What is the financial penalty for the stores, bars, and restaurants when someone lies about their age and obtains alcohol illegally? I suspect we could bankrupt most places that sell alcohol if we wanted given very severe penalties combined with the ingenuity of young people wanting to drink. Alcohol related deaths are obviously common, yet I'm not sure if we have such draconian enforcement for even that. I know one young person between the ages of 18 and 21 whose ID absurdly lists him as 6' 5'' when he's about 6 feet tall at most. I guess no one has even looked that close at it.
All good points. Bars get shut down when they are negligent on IDs or complicit. They dont get shut down for being legitimately fooled. I am only familiar with the new North Carolina law. It overwhelmingly passed bi-partisan and was signed by Dem Gov Cooper. However, the compliance methodology is very loosey goosey with complaints happening as soon as it went into effect in Jan. Basically says sites need to verify ages with a commercially available database or method and you can be sued if you keep any information. Sites simply just block anyone from NC now because they are not able to comply. Its a shit bill because they didnt set up a method to comply.
