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