3 ms·
Sounds fine; it's their culture and prerogative. Probably a benefit to deter such consumption for as many youth and young adults as possible, given the negative
by mandragon 6y ago
Sounds fine; it's their culture and prerogative. Probably a benefit to deter such consumption for as many youth and young adults as possible, given the negative impact on mental health.
- ceejayoz 6y agoJim Crow was a significant part of the South's culture, and no state has the prerogative of First Amendment violations.
- mandragon 6y agoAnd yet, the intention is to deter usage of a product/vice that is a bane on America. Cut the supply is effective at reducing consumption. Is this really 1A when we are talking about mental health of our children? It's fairly well established that no pornography consumption is a net positive.
- wait_a_minute 6y agoNo thanks, I’d prefer one state’s extremist religious inclinations not tank liberty for everyone else. They can monitor their own phones and their own computers and leave everyone else’s alone.
- mandragon 6y agoWhy would this affect other states? Isn't this legislation specific to Utah?
- wait_a_minute 6y agoWe already know what the real goal is. It's theocracy. While I fundamentally believe all religions are true, I don't want to live under any theocracy at all.
- mandragon 6y agoNot seeing such a slippery slope. And again, isn't this specific to Utah only? May I ask if you live in Utah?
- ReactiveJelly 6y agoWho is 'they' in 'their culture'? And what is 'culture'? Religion? Surely there are atheists in Utah who don't want to go on a government list of porn watchers.
- mandragon 6y agoThis seems more about blocking. Internet activity is already tracked.