3 ms·
The law doesn't prevent you from using it. It prevents children from accessing it, or at least tries to.
by KBme 2y ago
The law doesn't prevent you from using it. It prevents children from accessing it, or at least tries to.
- sgarland 2y agoNot really. I’m fairly confident the lawmakers knew the operators of porn sites would just exit the market, because the methods of proving identity were onerous, and also who wants to submit proof of their identity to a porn site? Similarly, VPNs are a dime a dozen and incredibly easy to use, so a minor who wants to access it can just hop through another state. The law has no real impact.
- nunez 2y agoIt does this by asking for a government issued ID as proof. Prima facie, this makes sense. When you get cigs or beer, you're asked for ID to prove you're over 18. Porn is age-restricted, so porn websites should also ask for ID. QED, etc. But if you go even one step beneath this reasoning, you'll see that this is an unbelievably slippery slope: - What's stopping state governments from subpoenaing ID verification systems to find out who's viewing porn? - This is from the same state that "pioneered" a legal bounty system for phoning in women who might be getting an abortion so that they can be "dealt with." What's stopping the state from doing the same from people who watch porn? - What's stopping the state from extending this law to require age verification for anything that feels right for an ID check? Abortion sites? sites about birth control? Sites saying the wrong things about $DEITY? - This is also from the same state that, as the article outlines, has also passed a state bill that makes any form of moderation on social media illegal. So enacting spam control for folks spamming OnlyFans links is fine, but if you click on those links, you're viewing contraband and should be dealt with? What the fuck?