4 ms·

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

by 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
        seattle_spring 3y ago
        > a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children Again, no one is saying this. This is a completely made up scenario. It's not even related to the OP, which is about legal adults being blocked as a side-effect of poorly implemented age restriction verification. Are you referring to this line, and somehow changing "not really harmful" to "totally awesome", and "older teenagers" to "all children"? And then saying that this one little offhand line is what the plaintiff actually is bringing this lawsuit for? > But I’ll also say this: Is it really a problem if 16- or 17-year-olds watch some porn? Because, you know... Literal definition of a strawman: > an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument
    - Brybry 3y ago
      > Even among democrats, only a slim majority of 53%, consider porn to be morally acceptable for adult consumption Is that from this[1]? Because this is a meaningless question. How many people think alcohol is bad for you? Compare this with how many people still drink alcohol anyway. And with how well prohibition worked (and alcohol objectively is bad for you). ~69% of US adult men age 30 to 49 watched porn from 2021 to 2022. Only 12% of them claimed they have never watched porn. [2] And that's assuming some of the 12% are not lying. [3] The answer to porn issues for minors in households is good parenting, not a clumsy state law-mandated technical solution. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornography-morally-acceptable.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornograph... [2] https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/march-2022-aps/ https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/march-2022-aps... [3] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-truth-hurts-less-pornography-use-disclosure-vs-deception https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-truth-hurts-less-pornography-...
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.

by xtian 3y ago

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
      - seattle_spring 3y ago
        > a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children Again, no one is saying this. This is a completely made up scenario. It's not even related to the OP, which is about legal adults being blocked as a side-effect of poorly implemented age restriction verification. Are you referring to this line, and somehow changing "not really harmful" to "totally awesome", and "older teenagers" to "all children"? And then saying that this one little offhand line is what the plaintiff actually is bringing this lawsuit for? > But I’ll also say this: Is it really a problem if 16- or 17-year-olds watch some porn? Because, you know... Literal definition of a strawman: > an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument
  - Brybry 3y ago
    > Even among democrats, only a slim majority of 53%, consider porn to be morally acceptable for adult consumption Is that from this[1]? Because this is a meaningless question. How many people think alcohol is bad for you? Compare this with how many people still drink alcohol anyway. And with how well prohibition worked (and alcohol objectively is bad for you). ~69% of US adult men age 30 to 49 watched porn from 2021 to 2022. Only 12% of them claimed they have never watched porn. [2] And that's assuming some of the 12% are not lying. [3] The answer to porn issues for minors in households is good parenting, not a clumsy state law-mandated technical solution. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornography-morally-acceptable.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornograph... [2] https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/march-2022-aps/ https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/march-2022-aps... [3] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-truth-hurts-less-pornography-use-disclosure-vs-deception https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-truth-hurts-less-pornography-...

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.