4 ms·
No, it doesn't. RESTRICT empowers the federal government to enforce website bans, and provides for enforcement against efforts to evade those bans. This is a[1
by ajross 4y ago
No, it doesn't. RESTRICT empowers the federal government to enforce website bans, and provides for enforcement against efforts to evade those bans.
This is a[1] Utah state law, and a voluntary ban set up by Pornhub itself to comply. Just not relevant.
Mind you, RESTRICT is a bad bill, and those provisions are vague, and the EFF is right to be screaming about it. But it doesn't do what you think it does.
[1] Hilariously and depressingly unconstitutional. Good grief.
- robertlagrant 4y ago> Hilariously and depressingly unconstitutional. Good grief. How is it unconstitutional? I don't know the ins and outs.
- rbanffy 4y agoIANAL, but it looks like a law that's designed to suppress specific forms of art and artistical manifestations, which could be argued are free speech.
- edgyquant 4y agoPornography is already restricted for minors. All this law does it make that restriction apply to internet sites as well.
- JohnFen 4y agoWell, that's not all the law does. It also strips anonymity and, therefore, privacy.
- George83728 4y agoMy beard is gray but the government requires me to show a valid state ID when buying booze, cigs and porno mags at the gas station. If that's not a violation of the Constitution, why should carding people on porno websites be different?
- JohnFen 4y agoI never said there was a constitutional issue (I don't think that there is). The difference between showing ID to a clerk and this sort of thing is recordkeeping. A clerk is only checking the DOB on the ID, not keeping a record of your identity[1]. Online age checks keep records. If there were some way of doing an age check without having your identity attached to it or having to expose yourself to some commercial third party, I wouldn't have an issue. That's a tough nut, though. [1] I'm aware that certain businesses do keep a scan of your ID, but they're the exception and not the rule.
- rbanffy 4y ago> constitutional issue As a foreigner, it's kind of strange that violent movies (and political propaganda disguised as violent movies) are protected speech and pornography is not.
- JohnFen 4y agoAs a US citizen, I've found that utterly bizarre and borderline insane for my entire life.
- George83728 4y agoIn Europe, parents fear that violent media might effect their children, but worry less about sexual media. In America, parents worry that sexual media might effect their children, but worry less about violent media. I'm of the opinion that both are half right and both are half wrong. Both violent and sexual media effect the people who consume it. We are what we eat. There is no kind of media that doesn't effect consumers of that media in some way. Also, it bears mentioning that a lot of pornography is both sexual and violent... (In case it isn't clear, those two trends I list above are gross generalizations. When I was a child in America, my mother would not allow me to play with tin soldiers or GI Joes, nerf guns, or watch cartoons more violent than Arthur. Not a typical American childhood, but nevertheless still an American childhood. Generalizations always have exceptions but I think they can be useful nevertheless.)
- 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- brookst 4y agoLaws restricting speech must pass strict scrutiny, which means they are the lightest restrictions on speech that meet the government's interests. In Utah, it's clear that there would be less-restrictive ways to achieve the supposed goals of the law. For instance, jail parents whose minor children view pornography. That would not be a content-based restriction on speech. Since there is no way for a website to know the age of its visitors, the Utah law is a de facto ban on certain speech.
- Marsymars 4y ago> For instance, jail parents whose minor children view pornography. Does this seem at all practical to you? To me, this seems akin to dropping ID requirements at liquor stores and bars, and instead enacting a law to jail the parents of minors who drink liquor.
- brookst 4y agoWell, we jail parents who abuse their children. And if viewing pornography is so dangerous to children that it justifies restricting speech for everyone, surely that is such a compelling interest that we should punish parents who allow it to happen. Which is all to say, no. None of this is workable because none of this is about protecting children from life-altering harm. This law is intended to create a liabikity trap to attack companies a religious state deems immoral.
- robertlagrant 4y ago> it justifies restricting speech for everyone I don't believe everyone considers pornography to be speech, let alone practices it as speech.
- brookst 4y agoWell, the US Supreme Court considers pornography to be speech[1]. And it turns out that restrictions on speech are unconstitutional independently of whether you want to exercise that particular speech. If a law is passed prohibiting discussion of mohair rugs, it infringes on my free speech even if I have no intention of discussing mohair rugs. 1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10189557359995044131&q=Memoirs+v.+massachusetts&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=101895573599950...