4 ms·

This is fantastic news! Thank you government of Utah! Your authoritarian grandstanding isn't likely to do much over the long term, given basic American values l

This is fantastic news! Thank you government of Utah! Your authoritarian grandstanding isn't likely to do much over the long term, given basic American values like freedom of expression. But in the meantime it will encourage people to get educated on basic ways of evading censorship, while simultaneously discouraging other sites from hassling visitors based on IP address.

_8j50 4y ago
This is such an HN comment. Democratically elected politicians enact laws that reflect the conservative views of their voters and that is totalitarian because they are controlling every aspect of government centrally with all decisions made my unelected leaders? No, because you disagree with it, that's it. You know, I dislike both liberalism and conservatism but in the US specifically, I feel like there is a particular misunderstanding with liberally minded people about what the US is supposed to be. If your fundamental human rights or other protected rights are violated I get it, but watching porn is not a right if any kind, states can restrict any aspect of your life that isn't protected as a right. There is already a restriction on adult material that involved minors or unwilling participants, this simply expands it to all people, and there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates porn is harmful to everyone, period! Personally, I find it more reasonable if you argued cigarettes are healthy compared to what porn does to your mind and therefore life. The whole point of a federal union is you move to other states when you don't like the laws, and everybody gets to exist with the most ideal liberty vs restriction ratio. For the "land doesn't vote" people who think the electoral college should be abolished? this is exactly why it exists, so crazy states line utah or missisipi don't have to leave the union. I am far from a secessionist but the electoral college was literally a critical component of the contract that states agreed to when joining the union. You need to understand that short of a global nuclear war, there are few things that are worse for humanity as a whole (even more so for americans) than a civil conflict between american states. The whole point of post here is that so long as these crazy state laws reflect the views of those who live there and existing (not future) rights of protected individuals are not violated, drop the exaggeration and tolerate them as you vehemently disagree with them.
- seanp2k2 4y ago
  This should be thrown out legally because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.". It's religion as law disguised as "But think of the children!" as usual.
  - erenyeager 4y ago
    It’s not favoring a particular religion, and even non religious people (including for ex some radical feminists you may find) can unite against pornography propagation. It’s also not just about think of the children, but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable and those growing up who will become the future adults.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      > but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable I bet these same folks would be up in an uproar if you mentioned gun control which have a lot more negative influences than seeing boobies…
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      > It’s also not just about think of the children, but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable and those growing up who will become the future adults. And yet that same society will do nothing to stop the number one cause of death in children: gun violence. One has to ask why?
  - justrealist 4y ago
    Judeo-Christian doctrine also has prohibitions against theft and murder. Should we throw those out? There's an overlap between secular and religious prohibitions, and there's no easy answer as to which rules are "religious" — you're just reflecting what's in your head as "obviously secular" and "obviously religious", and that's not how all other (secular) people view the world.

_8j50 4y ago

This is such an HN comment. Democratically elected politicians enact laws that reflect the conservative views of their voters and that is totalitarian because they are controlling every aspect of government centrally with all decisions made my unelected leaders? No, because you disagree with it, that's it. You know, I dislike both liberalism and conservatism but in the US specifically, I feel like there is a particular misunderstanding with liberally minded people about what the US is supposed to be. If your fundamental human rights or other protected rights are violated I get it, but watching porn is not a right if any kind, states can restrict any aspect of your life that isn't protected as a right. There is already a restriction on adult material that involved minors or unwilling participants, this simply expands it to all people, and there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates porn is harmful to everyone, period! Personally, I find it more reasonable if you argued cigarettes are healthy compared to what porn does to your mind and therefore life. The whole point of a federal union is you move to other states when you don't like the laws, and everybody gets to exist with the most ideal liberty vs restriction ratio. For the "land doesn't vote" people who think the electoral college should be abolished? this is exactly why it exists, so crazy states line utah or missisipi don't have to leave the union. I am far from a secessionist but the electoral college was literally a critical component of the contract that states agreed to when joining the union. You need to understand that short of a global nuclear war, there are few things that are worse for humanity as a whole (even more so for americans) than a civil conflict between american states. The whole point of post here is that so long as these crazy state laws reflect the views of those who live there and existing (not future) rights of protected individuals are not violated, drop the exaggeration and tolerate them as you vehemently disagree with them.

seanp2k2 4y ago
This should be thrown out legally because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.". It's religion as law disguised as "But think of the children!" as usual.
- erenyeager 4y ago
  It’s not favoring a particular religion, and even non religious people (including for ex some radical feminists you may find) can unite against pornography propagation. It’s also not just about think of the children, but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable and those growing up who will become the future adults.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable I bet these same folks would be up in an uproar if you mentioned gun control which have a lot more negative influences than seeing boobies…
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > It’s also not just about think of the children, but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable and those growing up who will become the future adults. And yet that same society will do nothing to stop the number one cause of death in children: gun violence. One has to ask why?
- justrealist 4y ago
  Judeo-Christian doctrine also has prohibitions against theft and murder. Should we throw those out? There's an overlap between secular and religious prohibitions, and there's no easy answer as to which rules are "religious" — you're just reflecting what's in your head as "obviously secular" and "obviously religious", and that's not how all other (secular) people view the world.