4 ms·

A 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

by xtian 3y ago

A 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 ago
How do you figure?
- xtian 3y ago
  I explained that. And the first line of the article references a “coalition made up of people who make adult entertainment”
  - seattle_spring 3y ago
    So 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 ago
      My 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 ago
        It’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 ago
        It 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 ago
        To 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.
        seattle_spring 3y ago
        No one is saying porn is good for children. What an incredible strawman.
      - Brybry 3y ago
        As someone who lives in Louisiana, this law is just really annoying by requiring ID for a few of the big porn sites. It doesn't prevent access to most sites, which don't implement it, or porn on sites like twitter or google, which the law doesn't cover. So some kids are maybe stopped (via this law) from a few sources of porn content while the vast majority are still there. While the law is very annoying for all the adults that want to use some of the bigger porn sites.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      The pornographers want the law overturned because making it difficult to view pornography in Louisiana is bad for their business, yes.
      - seattle_spring 3y ago
        The 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 ago
        The 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 ago
  Yeah so let’s not pretend we don’t know whose interests are really being represented here.
wl 3y ago
Your 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 ago
  I’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 ago
    I'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 ago
      Should we allow the human trafficking that “feeds” their industry too?
      - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        All 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 ago
Does 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 ago
Not really a fan of "ignore it and maybe things won't get worse."
Johnny555 3y ago
More annoying for her maybe, but if she wins then it frees thousands (millions?) of Louisiana porn users from this unnecessary burden.

by xtian 3y ago

A 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 ago

How do you figure?

xtian 3y ago
I explained that. And the first line of the article references a “coalition made up of people who make adult entertainment”
- seattle_spring 3y ago
  So 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 ago
    My 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 ago
      It’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 ago
        It 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 ago
        To 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.
        seattle_spring 3y ago
        No one is saying porn is good for children. What an incredible strawman.
    - Brybry 3y ago
      As someone who lives in Louisiana, this law is just really annoying by requiring ID for a few of the big porn sites. It doesn't prevent access to most sites, which don't implement it, or porn on sites like twitter or google, which the law doesn't cover. So some kids are maybe stopped (via this law) from a few sources of porn content while the vast majority are still there. While the law is very annoying for all the adults that want to use some of the bigger porn sites.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    The pornographers want the law overturned because making it difficult to view pornography in Louisiana is bad for their business, yes.
    - seattle_spring 3y ago
      The 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 ago
        The 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 ago
Yeah so let’s not pretend we don’t know whose interests are really being represented here.

wl 3y ago

Your 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 ago
I’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 ago
  I'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 ago
    Should we allow the human trafficking that “feeds” their industry too?
    - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
      All 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 ago

Does 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 ago

Not really a fan of "ignore it and maybe things won't get worse."

Johnny555 3y ago

More annoying for her maybe, but if she wins then it frees thousands (millions?) of Louisiana porn users from this unnecessary burden.