14 ms·
Louisiana porn ID: how Act 440 is wrecking perfectly normal adult sex lives
- decremental 3y ago[dead]
- xtian 3y agoA federal lawsuit will be way more “annoying” than acquiring an in-state license, installing a VPN, or any number of other alternatives. Seems like this person is a front for moneyed interests.
- omginternets 3y agoHow do you figure?
- xtian 3y agoI explained that. And the first line of the article references a “coalition made up of people who make adult entertainment”
- seattle_spring 3y agoSo your stance is that people fighting for 1st amendment rights are actually just in it for the money, assuming they have an easy workaround they could just use as an alternative?
- xtian 3y agoMy stance is that the desire of the adult in this very exceptional situation to access pornography slightly more conveniently does not outweigh the benefits of doing something about children being exposed to sexual content.
- GloomyBoots 3y agoIt’s crazy that this is unreasonable. The Louisiana law just brings cyberspace and meatspace into alignment. You already need to verify your age to access adult spaces in the real world. If the porn industry actually made any good faith attempts to prevent access to their materials by children, like any topless bar would for fear of getting shut down, the law wouldn’t be necessary. But instead they take the opposite approach. And the content in the former is vastly more extreme.
- xp84 3y agoIt seems to me like the difference between where you and @xtian stand and where the plaintiffs in this suit stand, is simply whether it’s more important to protect freedom of expression or to minimize the access of minors to this material. Nobody disagrees that both are important, but one has to override here, and I think a lot of people are rooting for the one that’s in the Constitution. I don’t even think I care to weigh in with my preference, other than to urge you to consider the reasons on both sides. Potential questions you might ask are “who gets to decide what’s porn, now and in future? Do state governments have a good track record of making reasonable decisions on issues that interest a loud minority of religious people who control one party which controls the state?” And finally “Do we really bet that nobody will ever hack this DB and publish a list of people in Louisiana who look at porn?”
- GloomyBoots 3y agoTo be clear, I'm not speaking for @xtian here. The constitution is constantly and dramatically overridden and overextended. Even the sense of porn being protected speech at all is one such case of its being stretched well beyond its intended limits. On the other hand, "hate speech" is exactly the kind of activity that it was intended to support. And organizations like the ACLU vehemently defend child porn, but equivocate on hate speech, an alternating undying adherence to the constitution when expedient even in the most contrived scenarios, and pretending that the constitution is passé or unclear when it comes to straightforward instances of its application. This is just political reality. So while I do have respect for the constitution as a cultural relic, I'm not overly concerned with strict constitutionality as such. > a loud minority of religious people If we put it to a plebiscite, the people would choose to prevent children from being exposed to porn. This isn't some fringe, Christian, right-wing perspective. It's the normal, working-class, common-sense opinion. Even among democrats, only a slim majority of 53%, consider porn to be morally acceptable for adult consumption. It's certainly a very fringe opinion that porn is good for children.
- philwelch 3y agoThe pornographers want the law overturned because making it difficult to view pornography in Louisiana is bad for their business, yes.
- seattle_spring 3y agoThe plaintiff is not a pornographer or anyone in the porn business, it's a normal person who consumes porn. What the pornography businesses want is irrelevant and I'm not sure why you brought them up in response.
- philwelch 3y agoThe pornographers are also plaintiffs in this case. The very first line in the article states this pretty clearly: "This week, a coalition made up of people who make adult entertainment and people who simply enjoy it filed a federal lawsuit." Since they're the one funding the lawsuit, what they want is extremely relevant.
- ramesh31 3y ago>Seems like this person is a front for moneyed interests. Of course, this is common practice. They need someone with legal standing to challenge it, so law firms will seek out an ideal plaintiff. But sometimes moneyed interests do align with the public good. This is very obviously an unconstitutional law that needs to be struck down.
- xtian 3y agoYeah so let’s not pretend we don’t know whose interests are really being represented here.
- wl 3y agoYour second sentence doesn't follow from your first. Have you never fought something on principle, especially when a win could help others similarly situated?
- xtian 3y agoI’d like to know more about the principles of the “coalition made up of people who make adult entertainment” referenced in the article.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- humanistbot 3y agoI'm pretty sure they are porn actors, producers, and distributors whose principles are that they should be able to freely exercise their first amendment to perform, produce, and distribute porn. Is that a problem?
- vuln 3y agoShould we allow the human trafficking that “feeds” their industry too?
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoAll industries have a bad side to them but I guess you honing hard on the sex and drugs industry. Fossil fuels might kill us, but who cares. Funny how consensual actions upset some Americans, but the most sadistic violence is just fine with them.
- vuln 3y ago> Funny how consensual actions upset some Americans, but the most sadistic violence is just fine with them. Sorry. What part of human trafficking is consensual? Just trying to follow your logic here. > but the most sadistic violence is just fine with them. You seem to be projecting.
- john011 3y ago[flagged]
- humanistbot 3y agoDoes that make her challenge to this censorship any less valid? Of course the porn companies are paying the legal bills. That's going to happen in any lawsuit of any broader political and economic significance. You're going to find someone with deep pockets and aligned interests. But they're not trying to hide it. If you look at the actual lawsuit filed in court [1], you'll see that the first named plaintiff is the Free Speech Coalition [2], the 501(c)(6) trade association for the porn industry. They've been around since 1991 and have challenged a bunch of anti-porn laws. [1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23855279/henson-declaration.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23855279/henson-decla... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Coalition
- john012 3y ago[flagged]
- kabdib 3y agoNot really a fan of "ignore it and maybe things won't get worse."
- Johnny555 3y agoMore annoying for her maybe, but if she wins then it frees thousands (millions?) of Louisiana porn users from this unnecessary burden.
- renewiltord 3y agoLooks like the Lousiana government is taking a cue from big corporations and tracking people's online activity. What is this intended for? How are they going to prove they are not secretly selling online activity data? This is a massive privacy violation, especially when you think about how you can target ads to people by their porn fetishes now that you have direct identification of individuals by their ID and you've made it a crime to pretend to be someone else. But money is money.
- EA-3167 3y agoEven if they're holding that data with no intention to sell, how long will it be before a leak or hack disseminates that data anyway?
- Brybry 3y agoEspecially given the Louisiana OMV recently had personal details on every single person with a license exposed via the MOVEit debacle. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36363110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36363110
- EA-3167 3y agoI didn't know about that, but it's impressively chilling in this context. Yikes.
- GloomyBoots 3y agoYou can say that about every information system. Even when it comes to our personal health information, nobody throws up their hands and exclaims, “keeping data safe is an intractable problem, we should abandon the whole idea.” You could make the same argument about porn sites themselves. They can’t possibly be trusted to safeguard users’ viewing habits, so we ought to shut them down. Then the state has no such information to track anyway. Win win.
- mandmandam 3y agoNot only is this unfairly flagged, but I can't vouch for it for some reason. Is this because I vouched for an article last week?
- yah1018 3y ago[flagged]
- greyface- 3y agoIn my experience, vouching becomes available once a post is [dead], not simply [flagged].
- mandmandam 3y agoAh, maybe that's what it is.. Though I still don't know what the difference would be.
- dogma1138 3y agoThe flag on a post can be removed when enough people with sufficient karma upvote it. a dead post can be vouched for and if enough high karma users do it it would be resurrected.
- netule 3y agoYeah, I'm not really sure why my submission was flagged. This is related to internet freedom and laws surrounding that. Maybe it's a taboo subject?
- mandmandam 3y agoI hate to say it, but maybe that's been added to the unwritten list of third rail topics. This recent post [0] in the same vein was flagged for hours, for no discernible reason. It was then quietly unflagged, after all algorithmic momentum was sucked out. Even the adjacent comment itt [1] pointing out the bizarre flagging recently has been flagged to death. You might not see it without showdead on. 0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452226 1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36482768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36482768