4 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
Well, 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 ago
    Well, 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...
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      I know, I know. Well, I think it's silly that anything image or video-based is speech, but I was still being facetious.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
It's an absolutely horrible idea. It only makes sense if maybe there's serious neglect by the parents, knowingly allowing it to continue. But probably that level of neglect is already illegal somehow anyway. I mean, when I was a teenager I already knew how to program and my mother was completely tech illiterate. So how the hell was she supposed to control what a chronically horny teenage boy was getting up to on the internet?
- brookst 4y ago
  I agree. But if Utah thinks that controlling horny teenage boys is such a vital state interest that it merits abrogating the first amendment, how can it be unreasonable to hold parents accountable?
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    Well, parents have to be pretty terrible at their job before taking the kids and putting them in a foster home is actually an improvement to their lives. From what I hear about CPS in the US, it should be the very last resort. We should also remember that teenagers are supposed to disobey their parents. It's not really the norm to have much control over your teenage children. That's just a natural stage of development from a dependent child to an independent adult who makes their own decisions. Sometimes teenagers just have to learn the hard way. I feel like porn is mostly harmful in combination with loneliness. I had a pretty bad addiction to it as a teenager but it kind of fixed itself when I started dating at 18 and realised the disconnect between porn and the real deal. If that never happened, I'd probably be a woman-hating incel by now.
ajross 4y ago
> 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. Purchasing liquor isn't a first amendment right. The standards are indeed different.
- Marsymars 4y ago
  As a non-American, whether something is legislated in their/your constitution, or at some other level, is for the most part, an implementation detail of the law that isn't too relevant to my concerns about the actual laws enforced.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

brookst 4y ago

Well, 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 ago
  Well, 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...
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    I know, I know. Well, I think it's silly that anything image or video-based is speech, but I was still being facetious.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

It's an absolutely horrible idea. It only makes sense if maybe there's serious neglect by the parents, knowingly allowing it to continue. But probably that level of neglect is already illegal somehow anyway. I mean, when I was a teenager I already knew how to program and my mother was completely tech illiterate. So how the hell was she supposed to control what a chronically horny teenage boy was getting up to on the internet?

brookst 4y ago
I agree. But if Utah thinks that controlling horny teenage boys is such a vital state interest that it merits abrogating the first amendment, how can it be unreasonable to hold parents accountable?
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Well, parents have to be pretty terrible at their job before taking the kids and putting them in a foster home is actually an improvement to their lives. From what I hear about CPS in the US, it should be the very last resort. We should also remember that teenagers are supposed to disobey their parents. It's not really the norm to have much control over your teenage children. That's just a natural stage of development from a dependent child to an independent adult who makes their own decisions. Sometimes teenagers just have to learn the hard way. I feel like porn is mostly harmful in combination with loneliness. I had a pretty bad addiction to it as a teenager but it kind of fixed itself when I started dating at 18 and realised the disconnect between porn and the real deal. If that never happened, I'd probably be a woman-hating incel by now.

ajross 4y ago

> 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. Purchasing liquor isn't a first amendment right. The standards are indeed different.

Marsymars 4y ago
As a non-American, whether something is legislated in their/your constitution, or at some other level, is for the most part, an implementation detail of the law that isn't too relevant to my concerns about the actual laws enforced.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]