3 ms·

I explained that. And the first line of the article references a “coalition made up of people who make adult entertainment”

by xtian 3y ago

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.
        GloomyBoots 3y ago
        You’re intentionally acting obtuse and missing the point to accuse me of a strawman. That point wasn’t the sum nor the thrust of what I said, nor did I claim that the person I was responding to was personally putting that forward. Your reply, however, is both categorically untrue and an actual strawman. In such debates it constantly comes up that porn is “a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children. It’s highly doubtful that you’ve missed this if you’ve been paying any attention at all to the conversations around this. That, plus your intentional disregarding of the actual thrust of my argument, indicates that you aren’t acting in good faith. Edit: and a soft-pedaled version of the same argument for children to be able to watch porn comes up in this very article
  - 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.

I explained that. And the first line of the article references a “coalition made up of people who make adult entertainment”

by 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.
        GloomyBoots 3y ago
        You’re intentionally acting obtuse and missing the point to accuse me of a strawman. That point wasn’t the sum nor the thrust of what I said, nor did I claim that the person I was responding to was personally putting that forward. Your reply, however, is both categorically untrue and an actual strawman. In such debates it constantly comes up that porn is “a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children. It’s highly doubtful that you’ve missed this if you’ve been paying any attention at all to the conversations around this. That, plus your intentional disregarding of the actual thrust of my argument, indicates that you aren’t acting in good faith. Edit: and a soft-pedaled version of the same argument for children to be able to watch porn comes up in this very article
- 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.