4 ms·

No. But it's unconstitutional to require an id to get a book.

by cvalka 4y ago

_-david-_ 4y ago
First, we are talking about internet porn, not porn books or magazines or whatever you seem to be talking about. Secondly, you are going to have to explain the difference between a book and a gun constitutionally. If requiring an ID is disenfranchisement of a right when it comes to books then it is for guns as well.
- miracle2k 4y ago
  This may contain some informative details about the constitutional analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association\ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan... > First, we are talking about internet porn, not porn books or magazines or whatever you seem to be talking about. I have not, on the other hand, seen a free speech analysis hinge on the medium of delivery.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    That doesn't really address my point. If it is unconstitutional to ban sales under 18 of legal material then it would be unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns to under 18 year olds as well. The Supreme Court seems to have a contradiction on this topic for different rights.
    - miracle2k 4y ago
      > If it is unconstitutional to ban sales under 18 of legal material then it would be unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns to under 18 year olds as well. Why should it be neat like this? For guns, the court might look at the second amendment, its purpose role and intention, contrast those with the dangers of guns in the hands of children, and scope out the limits to the second amendment. For speech, the court would do this analysis for the first amendment, and the outcome might be different, maybe also depending on the type of speech in question.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        If the Supreme Court can just determine the scope of an amendment when it comes to dangers to children then there is no reason they can't say porn is damaging to children and say this law is constitutional. Not to mention, none of the founding fathers intended for the first amendment's "purpose role and intention" to include porn. Obscenity laws banned porn and anything remotely close. Also, don't forget that the intention of Bill of Rights was to only be applied to the federal government not to the states. Prior to the 14th amendment and some time after it, states were not bound to follow any of the amendments. Since this is a state law if we were to base it on the "purpose role and intention" of the first amendment it wouldn't even apply to Louisiana.
        cvalka 4y ago
        You read something somewhere but it's clear you're clueless when it comes to the US constitutional law. The first paragraph seems to be written by GPT-3. The second paragraph contains one outright false statement and another statement which is very likely to be false. The third paragraph is non sequitur since the 14 amendment is currently the law of the land.
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        >You read something somewhere but it's clear you're clueless when it comes to the US constitutional law. The first paragraph seems to be written by GPT-3. Calling somebody a bot is a great argument. >The second paragraph contains one outright false statement and another statement which is very likely to be false. This is complete and utter nonsense. Obscenity is not and was never protected by the first amendment. Porn was considered to be obscene when the 1st amendment was created. > The third paragraph is non sequitur since the 14 amendment is currently the law of the land. The intent of the 14th amendment was not to push the bill of rights onto the states. This was a development that occurred well after the 14th amendment. The earliest you could argue the 14th amendment creating incorporated rights is 3 decades after it was created though many people consider it to be closer to be 50 years after the 14th amendment. The incorporated rights interpretation is extremely dubious and was not the intended purpose of the amendment.
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      Not necessarily. Laws touching either 1st or 2nd amendment rights would both receive strict scrutiny[1], but that doesn't mean the outcome would be the same. To pass strict scrutiny, a law must be justified by a compelling governmental interest like national security or preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Keeping children from buying guns serves the obvious purpose of stopping children from accidentally killing people. It's much less clear how a child accessing a video could kill someone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        It is not strictly about saving lives and can include public health. When you read the page linked from the one you provided "compelling or overriding state interest"[1] it says it can include "the protection of public health and safety". Porn is addictive and there is a correlation between porn and depression (the causation hasn't been proven yet). Both of those are public health issues. It needs to be narrowly tailored, which this bill appears to be. If they mandated showing an ID before going on any site rather than strictly porn, then you might have a case. It also needs to be the least restrictive way to effectively accomplish this. I can't think of a less restrictive way to ensure people under 18 cannot view porn than requiring an ID. You can't argue for a button saying you are over 18 since that is not effective. Regardless, the original intent of the First Amendment was not to protect porn. It is clear that obscenity laws blocking porn were legal. I also reject the idea of incorporated rights and do not believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the States. Since this is a state law the First Amendment doesn't apply. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

No. But it's unconstitutional to require an id to get a book.

by cvalka 4y ago

No. But it's unconstitutional to require an id to get a book.

First, we are talking about internet porn, not porn books or magazines or whatever you seem to be talking about. Secondly, you are going to have to explain the difference between a book and a gun constitutionally. If requiring an ID is disenfranchisement of a right when it comes to books then it is for guns as well.

miracle2k 4y ago
This may contain some informative details about the constitutional analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association\ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan... > First, we are talking about internet porn, not porn books or magazines or whatever you seem to be talking about. I have not, on the other hand, seen a free speech analysis hinge on the medium of delivery.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  That doesn't really address my point. If it is unconstitutional to ban sales under 18 of legal material then it would be unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns to under 18 year olds as well. The Supreme Court seems to have a contradiction on this topic for different rights.
  - miracle2k 4y ago
    > If it is unconstitutional to ban sales under 18 of legal material then it would be unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns to under 18 year olds as well. Why should it be neat like this? For guns, the court might look at the second amendment, its purpose role and intention, contrast those with the dangers of guns in the hands of children, and scope out the limits to the second amendment. For speech, the court would do this analysis for the first amendment, and the outcome might be different, maybe also depending on the type of speech in question.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      If the Supreme Court can just determine the scope of an amendment when it comes to dangers to children then there is no reason they can't say porn is damaging to children and say this law is constitutional. Not to mention, none of the founding fathers intended for the first amendment's "purpose role and intention" to include porn. Obscenity laws banned porn and anything remotely close. Also, don't forget that the intention of Bill of Rights was to only be applied to the federal government not to the states. Prior to the 14th amendment and some time after it, states were not bound to follow any of the amendments. Since this is a state law if we were to base it on the "purpose role and intention" of the first amendment it wouldn't even apply to Louisiana.
      - cvalka 4y ago
        You read something somewhere but it's clear you're clueless when it comes to the US constitutional law. The first paragraph seems to be written by GPT-3. The second paragraph contains one outright false statement and another statement which is very likely to be false. The third paragraph is non sequitur since the 14 amendment is currently the law of the land.
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        >You read something somewhere but it's clear you're clueless when it comes to the US constitutional law. The first paragraph seems to be written by GPT-3. Calling somebody a bot is a great argument. >The second paragraph contains one outright false statement and another statement which is very likely to be false. This is complete and utter nonsense. Obscenity is not and was never protected by the first amendment. Porn was considered to be obscene when the 1st amendment was created. > The third paragraph is non sequitur since the 14 amendment is currently the law of the land. The intent of the 14th amendment was not to push the bill of rights onto the states. This was a development that occurred well after the 14th amendment. The earliest you could argue the 14th amendment creating incorporated rights is 3 decades after it was created though many people consider it to be closer to be 50 years after the 14th amendment. The incorporated rights interpretation is extremely dubious and was not the intended purpose of the amendment.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    Not necessarily. Laws touching either 1st or 2nd amendment rights would both receive strict scrutiny[1], but that doesn't mean the outcome would be the same. To pass strict scrutiny, a law must be justified by a compelling governmental interest like national security or preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Keeping children from buying guns serves the obvious purpose of stopping children from accidentally killing people. It's much less clear how a child accessing a video could kill someone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      It is not strictly about saving lives and can include public health. When you read the page linked from the one you provided "compelling or overriding state interest"[1] it says it can include "the protection of public health and safety". Porn is addictive and there is a correlation between porn and depression (the causation hasn't been proven yet). Both of those are public health issues. It needs to be narrowly tailored, which this bill appears to be. If they mandated showing an ID before going on any site rather than strictly porn, then you might have a case. It also needs to be the least restrictive way to effectively accomplish this. I can't think of a less restrictive way to ensure people under 18 cannot view porn than requiring an ID. You can't argue for a button saying you are over 18 since that is not effective. Regardless, the original intent of the First Amendment was not to protect porn. It is clear that obscenity laws blocking porn were legal. I also reject the idea of incorporated rights and do not believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the States. Since this is a state law the First Amendment doesn't apply. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]