4 ms·

The same people who argue this will also argue that voter ID rules are discriminatory.

by lmz 1y ago

sltkr 1y ago
Are the laws that require you to show ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, fire arms, or gamble in casinos also discriminatory? Or is it only discriminatory when you prevent people without IDs from watching porn?
- mattnewton 1y ago
  The definition of Porn by the state can change to include things that some people consider protected by the first amendment - right now there are a lot of state politicians or members of the house on record supporting classifying discussion of LGBTQ lifestyles as pornography for example. I think alcohol, tobacco and gambling here are mostly irrelevant, but the firearms is a better example because of the second amendment, where you have a clash between a very old right granted by the bill of rights clashing with modern societies beliefs.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > Are the laws that require you to show ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, fire arms, or gamble in casinos also discriminatory? So long as it is done for a legitimate purpose and in good faith, generally no. As such, IDs are only expected where there is reasonable suspicion of possible violation. For example, there is no onus, with a few exceptions, to see an elderly person's ID to buy alcohol when there is no reason to think that they aren't below the minimum age. The exceptions haven't really been tested. It very well could be found discriminatory, and you could make a pretty good case that it is. Which is ultimately the same case being made earlier. Asking a no-question-about-it 50 year old to provide his ID to watch porn isn't really in good faith, is it?
mattnewton 1y ago
Voter ID laws actually have a long history of being used for disenfranchisement of certain classes in the US (most notably former slaves and their descendants, but also women), so it's understandable there is scar tissue there. It gives the incumbent state another lever of power in our very close first-past-the-post winner-take-all elections. Americans don't need imagination to see how it could be abused, just a good history book.
crote 1y ago
The problem with voter ID laws have rarely been with the ID itself. Very few people would have issue with a voter ID law which also guarantees that 100% of the population can easily obtain said ID at zero cost. The issue is that those laws are usually linked to very specific forms of ID, which just so happen to be easily available to certain demographic groups. Imagine a voter ID law where the only acceptable form of ID would cost $50.000 to purchase. Would you consider that fair and nondiscriminatory? What if you could only get the ID on the third Tuesday of the month, between 14:00 and 14:30, at a single location in the entire state? What if the ID required you to pass a certain kind of test, judged arbitrarily by a government official?

The same people who argue this will also argue that voter ID rules are discriminatory.

by lmz 1y ago

The same people who argue this will also argue that voter ID rules are discriminatory.

Are the laws that require you to show ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, fire arms, or gamble in casinos also discriminatory? Or is it only discriminatory when you prevent people without IDs from watching porn?

mattnewton 1y ago
The definition of Porn by the state can change to include things that some people consider protected by the first amendment - right now there are a lot of state politicians or members of the house on record supporting classifying discussion of LGBTQ lifestyles as pornography for example. I think alcohol, tobacco and gambling here are mostly irrelevant, but the firearms is a better example because of the second amendment, where you have a clash between a very old right granted by the bill of rights clashing with modern societies beliefs.
9rx 1y ago
> Are the laws that require you to show ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, fire arms, or gamble in casinos also discriminatory? So long as it is done for a legitimate purpose and in good faith, generally no. As such, IDs are only expected where there is reasonable suspicion of possible violation. For example, there is no onus, with a few exceptions, to see an elderly person's ID to buy alcohol when there is no reason to think that they aren't below the minimum age. The exceptions haven't really been tested. It very well could be found discriminatory, and you could make a pretty good case that it is. Which is ultimately the same case being made earlier. Asking a no-question-about-it 50 year old to provide his ID to watch porn isn't really in good faith, is it?

mattnewton 1y ago

Voter ID laws actually have a long history of being used for disenfranchisement of certain classes in the US (most notably former slaves and their descendants, but also women), so it's understandable there is scar tissue there. It gives the incumbent state another lever of power in our very close first-past-the-post winner-take-all elections. Americans don't need imagination to see how it could be abused, just a good history book.

crote 1y ago

The problem with voter ID laws have rarely been with the ID itself. Very few people would have issue with a voter ID law which also guarantees that 100% of the population can easily obtain said ID at zero cost. The issue is that those laws are usually linked to very specific forms of ID, which just so happen to be easily available to certain demographic groups. Imagine a voter ID law where the only acceptable form of ID would cost $50.000 to purchase. Would you consider that fair and nondiscriminatory? What if you could only get the ID on the third Tuesday of the month, between 14:00 and 14:30, at a single location in the entire state? What if the ID required you to pass a certain kind of test, judged arbitrarily by a government official?