Louisiana now requires a government ID to access Pornhub
vice.com
vice.com
IMO the best approach is to ensure parents are technically competent and knowledgeable enough to be able to configure effective parental controls on all of their children's devices that are difficult to circumvent. E.g. iOS already has iCloud Lock which has proven to be difficult to bypass even with bootROM exploits and jailbreaks. Perhaps they should expand this level of protection to parental controls (if it isn't already).
Because they accidentally ran across a link and clicked on it. YouTube comments are filled with links to porn / non age appropriate material for example.
>I worry about vile content targeted toward children.
As do I. But I don't think targeting is necessarily the issue here.
PornHub does target to children though. Their Instagram had a post about children watching porn for example.
>I worry about these things showing up on his youtube feed, not a porn website.
It isn't hard to mistype YouTube and since many pornsites have the word "tube" in them it wouldn't be hard to imagine they could get to a porn site.
The fact that a website has 'tube' in it is yet another non-sequitur. It does not follow.
Kids can easily access porn on accident. That is all my point is. We should make it easy to prevent kids from seeing it.
Pornhub was on Instagram and so kids could get to PornHub's page and view content directed to kids about porn. I think banning Pornhub from Instagram was the right choice and helps prevent putting adult related content on a kid's feed.
My point about tube being in other websites is when you google YouTube you may end up with a porn site if you have a typo. Kids, in an attempt to go to child friendly content on YouTube may end up on a porn site just by accident.
Do you think that will be the case for the majority of preteens? Maybe once you become a teenager you can better understand, but the average age of first viewing porn is before the teenage years.
A lot of religious institutions tend to rely on shame and taboo to persuade children/teens from watching porn. But I don't think that's effective either, shame and suppression can cause other issues.
I think even outside of porn it's important to understand this about all forms of media, that most of it is thin and largely fake. Media addiction and letting it affect your perception of reality is a general problem, especially today in the on-demand era.
If anyone else has good recommendations, please chime in.
The problem is many children cannot figure it out.
>I think it's important to have external education about this from other sources, but I'm not aware of any good sources on this.
I don't think there are many resources. The only one I am aware of is https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/
I don't think just having resources will solve the problem. If that was the case then kids wouldn't do drugs.
>A lot of religious institutions tend to rely on shame and taboo to persuade children/teens from watching porn. But I don't think that's effective either, shame and suppression can cause other issues.
I'm not sold that shame and taboo can't work. In the past, prior to internet porn, you would have to go to a theater or buy a magazine or video. Many people who had the urges didn't because they didn't want to be caught due to the shame and taboo nature of the material.
Due to the widespread accessibility and use by the population there is no longer shame or a taboo nature to it for many people. I saw some study a while back that said around 90% of men in the US watch porn at least once a month. I don't know the veracity of the study and I couldn't find it when I looked, but even if it is only half of that, you can't really enforce taboos and shame with only half of the population.
Also, since most kids view porn there also wouldn't be any shame and taboo in their peer group.
>I think even outside of porn it's important to understand this about all forms of media, that most of it is thin and largely fake. Media addiction and letting it affect your perception of reality is a general problem, especially today in the on-demand era.
I fully agree. I'm not sure if a law like this is the best way to deal with this addiction, but I have to give them credit for trying.
Kids are able to understand at an early age the difference between (some) fantasy and reality.[1][2]
For some porn it's very obvious and for some porn it's not.
I think it's certainly better if parents decide what their kids are ready for and if the kids have the resources to help answer questions (my sex ed teacher was actually really good for this).
Would most preteens even be interested in porn without a hormonal sex drive? Like how they see people kissing and still think it's "gross"?
I know I had access to the internet fairly early, and it was hard to not accidentally stumble onto porn through searching, but I didn't start consuming porn until after I was actually a teenager.
Even then I wasn't a large consumer because I was romantically interested in my peers and porn stars at the time looked a lot older.
[1] https://news.utexas.edu/2006/11/27/young-children-learn-to-d...
>For some porn it's very obvious and for some porn it's not.
There is no way to properly distinguish between "fantasy" and "reality" porn and only restrict some porn. Unless you are going to mandate porn sites manually review every video and properly tag them.
I also think there are other issues, like many young children not even knowing what sex is when they first view porn. I'm not sure how much you can distinguish between the two when you don't even know what you are looking at.
>I think it's certainly better if parents decide what their kids are ready for and if the kids have the resources to help answer questions (my sex ed teacher was actually really good for this).
I don't believe the average parent has the capability of blocking porn if their children are not ready. If we are going to go for the parents should deal with it route, then we need something that the parent can just check a box on. As far as I know, most ISPs don't provide this functionality which leaves parents in a situation they don't know how to solve.
This assumes that parents know that this is a problem. Many parents don't realize that young kids so often access porn. The only way this could work is if the default is to block porn and you would have to request access from your ISP. Given the reaction when the UK did the same thing, I'm not sure it would be practical to do here.
>Would most preteens even be interested in porn without hormonal ex drive? Sort of like how they see people kissing and still think it's "gross".
>I know I had access to the internet fairly early, and it was hard to not accidentally stumble onto porn through searching, but I didn't start consuming porn until after I was actually a teenager.
Many kids view porn before puberty and not just a one time sort of thing so I don't think hormonal drive is causing it for many kids.
The average parent has the capability to block porn because blocking porn can be simply done with controlling internet device access.
It's similar to how parents block porn when it is in books or Playboy magazines or VHS tapes or TV. Parents restrict access to their property that contains porn.
If someone's kids are at an age where they don't want them possibly viewing porn then they can limit their kids to devices with parental controls that allow strict app/site whitelists (ex. Amazon Kindle Fire tablets and iPads) or only allow device access during a supervised time (what my parents did with TV).
If parents are letting their children stay up all night on phones and tablets then I guess it's a problem but the same thing would be true if parents 30 years ago didn't lock up their Playboy magazines or VHS tapes or parental lock their TV.
> This assumes that parents know that this is a problem
Most millennials who have kids and had internet access previously in their life likely experienced the atmosphere of troll content like meatspin and goatse that was 90s/00s internet with AIM and IRC and filesharing and search engines before filters.
I find it hard to believe parents today don't know the internet has far worse than porn sites.
How are parents supposed to control devices their kid's friends have at school or at a friends house? By your reasoning the parents must homeschool and be present at any friend's house. Is that what you are advocating for?
>It's similar to how parents block porn when it is in books or Playboy magazines or VHS tapes or TV. Parents restrict access to their property that contains porn.
Kids frequently got access to porn magazines because their friends had one. How do you expect a parent to prevent their kids from viewing those porn magazines? Should a parent search their kid's backpack and strip search them every time they get home?
>If someone's kids are at an age where they don't want them possibly viewing porn then they can limit their kids to devices with parental controls that allow strict app/site whitelists (ex. Amazon Kindle Fire tablets and iPads) or only allow device access during a supervised time (what my parents did with TV).
You are assuming it is not possible for a kid to see porn outside their home or on another person's device.
>If parents are letting their children stay up all night on phones and tablets then I guess it's a problem but the same thing would be true if parents 30 years ago didn't lock up their Playboy magazines or VHS tapes or parental lock their TV.
I agree, but misses the point since kids view porn outside their home.
> Most millennials who have kids and had internet access previously in their life likely experienced the atmosphere of troll content like meatspin and goatse that was 90s/00s internet with AIM and IRC and filesharing and search engines before filters.
>I find it hard to believe parents today don't know the internet has far worse than porn sites.
The upper end of millennials and the lower end of gen x may not have had much experience just browsing on the internet and finding meatspin and goatse and whatever else. Also, you may not believe it, but many non-tech people have never used IRC or filesharing.
So if they are so worried, they should make the effort to find out how to lock down their kids computer and phones that they personally bought and handed to them. Just a little more effort, and they can (or someone they pay to can) lock the devices down, prior to giving it to them.
Parents (not the state) should also be periodically checking their kid's phones and computers too. Not just for sex, but anything else they find objectionable (violence, guns, weird messages from unknown people, etc...) and may need to talk to them about.
> How are parents supposed to control devices their kid's friends have at school or at a friends house?
That is illogical. By the same measure, their kid can see people having sex at their friend's house too or be handed a sex book/magazine. Sex and depictions of sex can happen anywhere, not just on a device.
If the parents don't trust the people they are allowing their kids to go visit, then maybe it's time to not allow them to go there or talk to the other parents. These types of actions, of managing where and what kids do, are the primary job of the parents and not the state.
The context of the argument, is that on computing devices, parents have the means to lock them down. If they don't know how, they can find out or request the services of people that do know how to do it. Otherwise, if they are so worried about them seeing sex on such devices, then don't give them to their kids. The answer to the question is not to turn the entire world into a nanny and police state.
I agree that parents need to be involved. The problem is people don't take the position that because parents should be involved that means we shouldn't have laws about it on many other topics. How many people are advocating the removal of laws against 5 year olds smoking or drinking? Just because parents have a responsibility doesn't mean that laws should also not be in place. We mandate IDs be shown for buy cigarettes and alcohol. We can do the same for porn.
>So if they are so worried, they should make the effort to find out how to lock down their kids computer and phones that they personally bought and handed to them.
I agree. The problem is the child may be using a device they don't own.
>Just a little more effort, and they can (or someone they pay to can) lock the devices down, prior to giving it to them.
Doesn't work well. Who are they going to go to if they don't know anybody who is tech savvy? The parents will end up buying some software that is probably doing something sketchy.
Even if a parent blocks porn sites, non porn sites have porn. Google, Bing and other sites have porn on them. I don't think you can enforce safe mode in the search engines without changing DNS (I could be wrong). The average person has no clue what a router is, much less how to log in and change their DNS settings.
>Parents (not the state) should also be periodically checking their kid's phones and computers too. Not just for sex, but anything else they find objectionable (violence, guns, weird messages from unknown people, etc...) and may need to talk to them about.
I agree parents should be doing it. To reiterate one of my previous points, if a child is sending nudes to some random 40 year old should that be legal? Since you think the state shouldn't be involved with these things and it should be fully on the parents to enforce their own rules, you think it should be legal right?
>That is illogical. By the same measure, their kid can see people having sex at their friend's house too or be handed a sex book/magazine. Sex and depictions of sex can happen anywhere, not just on a device.
Devices are the easiest, most accessible, and most frequent way though. I'm guessing most parents don't have sex when their kid's friends are over as well. Even if they do, they would almost certainly stop the moment they saw the kid looking at them.
It feels like you have such a defeatist attitude. We can't stop kids from smoking so we should just make it legal for them to buy and smoke cigarettes? It just doesn't make sense. We can have some laws to make it harder for kids to do certain things.
>If the parents don't trust the people they are allowing their kids to go visit, then maybe it's time to not allow them to go there or talk to the other parents.
I agree, the problem is how easy it is for a small slip up. You can't really expect parents to stand in the same room as the kids every second.
>These types of actions, of managing where and what kids do, are the primary job of the parents and not the state.
I agree it is the primary job of the parents. I am asking for the secondary job to be on the state.
>The context of the argument, is that on computing devices, parents have the means to lock them down. If they don't know how, they can find out or request the services of people that do know how to do it.
I addressed this above.
>Otherwise, if they are so worried about them seeing sex on such devices, then don't give them to their kids.
And how do you solve the school problem? When I was at school, the way they blocked sites is by setting a proxy in internet explorer. To bypass it you would install a browser on a flash drive and then just browse using that browser. They didn't enforce the proxy be used with other browsers. I'm sure schools are better now a days, but kids find ways to bypass blocks all the time.
>The answer to the question is not to turn the entire world into a nanny and police state.
Very few people think requiring an ID for alcohol, cigarettes, guns, etc mean we live in a nanny and police state. Why is porn any different?
It appears the line of logic being used is that all persons (regardless if also an adult) should be further repressed and restricted (to include constitutional rights) by state regulation, which will somehow trickle down to also prevent kids viewing anything considered sexually too graphic (according to the opinionated state). Oh and by the way, it also magically provides a means for the state to grift off of such poorly thought out laws.
It is the parents who have the primary responsibility to supervise and manage their kids. That a mischievous kid may possess or view something they should not, does not justify repressive laws that restrict what are already the constitutional rights of all adults.
> ...When I was at school, the way they blocked sites is by setting a proxy in internet explorer. To bypass it you would install a browser on a flash drive and then just browse using that browser...
Based on what has been typed, that is a demonstration that such questionable and opinionated laws passed by the state are unenforceable. Mischievous kids, with the new Louisiana law, can still circumvent it in multiple ways (VPN, proxy, etc...). So what the law is really doing, is having an adverse affect on adults. It allows the state to oppress, track, destroy privacy, and grift off of adults.
The primary preventative measure, to stop mischievous kids from seeing what they are not suppose to, is supervision by adults and parents. Remember, sex among consenting adults is legal and a natural part of human biology and nature. Not just the topic of sex needs to be addressed, but excessive violence or adult themes deemed too difficult to handle at certain ages. So we are usually dealing with what is appropriate and supervision.
The adult IT staff at the school, are the ones who are suppose to lock down the computer to prevent circumcision. The teachers of the class, are suppose to be watching the kids. Then the parents, who should know what their kids are doing, in addition to teaching then to abide by their beliefs and rules they have set for them.
The "nanny" is suppose to be an adult over a child. Nanny is not suppose to be the state acting that way over adults, to include grift and repress their constitutional rights and freedoms, that they are already suppose to have as adults.
The Louisiana law, is the very definition of a "nanny state law" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state).
>It appears the line of logic being used is that all persons (regardless if also an adult) should be further repressed and restricted (to include constitutional rights) by state regulation, which will somehow trickle down to also prevent kids viewing anything considered sexually too graphic (according to the opinionated state).
You can make the same argument that for requiring IDs for cigarettes, alcohol or guns and yet almost nobody does. That is because people don't think requiring an ID is actually restricting rights.
>Oh and by the way, it also magically provides a means for the state to grift off of such poorly thought out laws.
You can make this argument about many laws. But again, almost nobody does. Giving speeding tickets, for example, is a "grift" as well. Are you going to argue against them as well?
>It is the parents who have the primary responsibility to supervise and manage their kids.
Nobody is denying that fact. That doesn't mean that there can't be laws as well. We have laws requiring IDs for cigarettes and alcohol even though it is is the primary responsibility of the parents.
>That a mischievous kid may possess or view something they should not, does not justify repressive laws that restrict what are already the constitutional rights of all adults.
You are in favor of removing ID requirements and background checks on buying guns, right? If you are not then you believe in "repressive laws that restrict what are already the constitutional rights of all adults".
>Based on what has been typed, that is a demonstration that such questionable and opinionated laws passed by the state are unenforceable.
You can make that argument against alcohol laws. Yet I don't think you believe a 5 year old should be allowed to drink a bottle of vodka.
>Mischievous kids, with the new Louisiana law, can still circumvent it in multiple ways (VPN, proxy, etc...).
Correct. This will mostly be for stopping kids from accidentally viewing porn. Not about preventing all viewing of porn by kids.
>So what the law is really doing, is having an adverse affect on adults.
So do all laws.
>It allows the state to oppress, track, destroy privacy, and grift off of adults.
The state should in theory never know which person is accessing porn with the verification system. Also, states could already get that data by requesting logs from the ISPs so there isn't really a difference.
>The primary preventative measure, to stop mischievous kids from seeing what they are not suppose to, is supervision by adults and parents.
Again, nobody is denying this. It is quite interesting how you ignored my points in my previous post about this. We have laws to stop / limit a child's access to a huge amount of things. Unless you are willing to remove laws stopping children from buying alcohol, cigarettes or guns you are holding a double standard. Please let me know your view on IDs on those laws.
>Remember, sex among consenting adults is legal and a natural part of human biology and nature.
So?
>The adult IT staff at the school, are the ones who are suppose to lock down the computer to prevent circumcision.
We agree.
>The teachers of the class, are suppose to be watching the kids.
We agree.
> Then the parents, who should know what their kids are doing, in addition to teaching then to abide by their beliefs and rules they have set for them.
I agree parents should know. But they can't be with their children 24/7 so having laws seems fine.
>The "nanny" is suppose to be an adult over a child.
That is what this law is though?
>Nanny is not suppose to be the state acting that way over adults, to include grift and repress their constitutional rights and freedoms, that they are already suppose to have as adults.
>The Louisiana law, is the very definition of a "nanny state law" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state).
So are 90% of our laws. Nobody bats an eye when we have laws requiring kids to wear helmets. Nobody cares when we ban jay walking. Yet when one of the most addictive things gets a law people lose their minds. I don't think it is a coincidence.
(I had a Maxim subscription when I was ten-ish, the issue was conditioning folks to only be attracted to airbrushed, surgery laden folks with heaps of makeup and gym routines that are only accomplishable if "being pretty" is your full time job, those issues are the same whether it's porn or "just" modeling.)
Some people have vices legal or not and there always will be folks who will supply it for a price.
P0rn is another form of addiction and should be treated as such.
(Not trolling. I also started watching porn at a young age and I wonder if it had any negative effect on my development.)
my parents set up my computer in the kitchen, where I couldn't hide the screen. that wouldn't work with mobile devices, but in the pre-smartphone world it was pretty effective.
I still watched porn as a 15-yo, but I had to be careful not to get caught, and I don't regret it.
Just because it is the parents' responsibility, doesn't mean the government cannot also make laws regarding it. Would you recommend removing the laws banning 5 year olds from doing heroin just because it is a parent's responsibility?
>parents can (or at least should be able to) block porn sites at the router.
There are a few issues.
1. The average parent has no technological knowledge to be able to do this
2. Many blocks on routers use DNS blacklists. Browsers are now implementing encrypted DNS and will bypass the block.
3. Even if the blocker checks the host name, with ECH/ESNI around the corner this won't be possible soon.
Not only can parents block porn sites at the router, but they can lock down their kids browsers and even phones. Plenty of software and methods to accomplish this. That's what the state can be doing, making it easier for parents to supervise and manage their kids.
What the state is instead doing, is sneaking in a nanny and police state, under the disguise of "protecting kids". Their nanny and police state regulations affect all, not kids.
Just as easily (and arguably being more smart about it), the state could have setup a website and given free software tools for concerned parents to lockdown their kids computers and smartphones, if you really want to take it that far. Take it even further, have "certified" stores selling computer devices to be used by kids, to have this available for configuration and install for parents who want it.
The BS that Louisiana is trying to pull off, is not going to stop kids (with any lick of knowledge about VPNs), nor help facilitate better parenting. It's just the state lying and fumbling its way towards becoming more draconian and pulling off more grift.
What the state is really trying to do, is push unreasonable police state control over adult citizens. They are making excuses for tracking and monitoring adults, along with censoring freedom of speech and expression.
> ...seems like great news to me...
There are people that think it's a great idea for all the women to cover up from head to toe. And even others that feel any violations of their religious beliefs (including sexual practices) are punishable with death. The state and those seeking to impose on others can keep taking this as far as others are willing to let them.
Let me guess Texas and Florida will jump on this as well - will be interesting to see if this goes to the Supreme Court - afaik porn is protected as freedom of expression in the US is it not ???.
However, just because something is protected does not mean you cannot require an ID. If that was the case then it would be unconstitutional to require an ID before buying a gun.
The social media stuff is almost worse than the porn, because banning your kid from it is blocking them from the main way their peers communicate. So you are left with the choice of letting their undeveloped brains get barraged by social media, or making them the odd one out at school.
Personally, I'd opt for teaching my kid to be the odd one out whenever it makes sense.
This isn't the same as installing cameras on every corner because kids are getting kidnapped, this is the same thing as saying cigarettes/drugs/alcohol should be for people 18+ when they are old enough to decide for themselves, especially given all those things (and social media) has known negative impacts on developing brains.
A significant portion of my high school population was drinking alcohol at parties and another (smaller) portion was smoking weed. My understanding from most of my friends and relatives is that their schools were the same.
In my opinion kids are far better served by being enabled to safely explore new experiences and methods on how to deal with peer pressure when they don't want to. But really that's up to each parent to decide, they should know their kids best.
18 years old as a magical line for all human beings being equally capable to decide for themselves is a bit silly, if anything 18 year old males might be at the worst time for these experiences.
If we wanted a good 'average' age to group everyone into that's based more on current understanding of biology then we'd probably want something more like 25.
Why not install filtering in your home router and kids cellphones?
The average parent is incompetent when it comes to technology. They wouldn't know what to use and would likely install some sort of malware.
Perhaps Microsoft and Apple could implement something in their systems or the ISPs. If it is up to the parents to find the appropriate solution it just won't work.
Next step - drinking verification can with the other hand.
And I definitely don't desire or trust LAWallet.
So PornHub is dead to me unless I vpn/tunnel/tor (or discover a bypass which I assume is based on some cookie values from a brief look at the JS).
The best solution here would be to force all adult sites to require a minimum monthly payment from a credit card. Blocks underage users and helps tackle addiction.
On the other hand I do not agree that people should require credit cards. For ages there has been a single line HTTP header that can be added to a site or even to the meta-data in HTML itself to identify adult content. A law could require all user-content sites to implement the header and require all browser apps, operating systems, mobile devices to make a best-effort attempt and requiring a parental control system that approve-lists domains that have the adult content header.
A panel of the best UX designers in the industry could draft the RFC for device/browser updates and the law could reference the RFC. A panel of parents could test the beta versions.
In NGinx it looks like this:
location / { add_header Rating 'RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA'; }
http-response set-header Rating "RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA"
This puts the control and liability of the approval on the parent and they don't even need to be technically savvy at all. This also puts the liability to self-label a site on the site owner/administrator and they can each have instructions in a standard location on the site how to enable parental controls in apps/devices after such a law requires devices to have this functionality created in a standard and simple way that just looks for the header. Despite being meant for adult content there is nothing stopping this from being used for user-generated content domains. The end goal would simply be to provide a method of parental controls per domain or globally.
Most important, this method provides zero tracking of who is into what and does not leak financial or PII data.
How to enforce this? Crawlers find user generated site, people submit user generated sites. No header? 3 attempts are made to contact the domains admin/technical contact. 4th attempt domain(s) are seized.
In theory I would use the over-sized hammer of sanctions. Not perfect, not nice but it gets results.
Your idea compelling the client software to respect the header will probably not survive the 1st amendment
I don't think it has to. There are plenty of controls on the internet that could be seen as interfering with speech such as forbidding kiddie-porn or threats of harm against people. I believe empowering parents to block porn does not in any way interfere with the U.S. constitution. The owner of a device still has the choice to allow or block whatever they wish. But I am not a supreme court judge. We should test this.
remove copyright protection for porn
There enlies the rub. That would remove most incentives to produce commercial porn. This leaves only self hosted amateurs and probably then even a sub-set... probably mostly exhibitionists as they can no longer make significant amounts of money from it, probably just some donations to get the actors to do custom things. Great for voyeurs however would quickly get boring for many others. "Put shoe on head" would still be a thing
same things happen when kids want a few more bucks or access to parents drugs/alcohol .. they are going to take it anyways
Edit: come to think of it, wont the `Any commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the internet` be applicable to google, FB, titok,ect since their services are known to be addictive and such? All these research/articles on social media stating how it negatively affects mental states. gov-id for it all?
Secondly, you are going to have to explain the difference between a book and a gun constitutionally. If requiring an ID is disenfranchisement of a right when it comes to books then it is for guns as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan...
> First, we are talking about internet porn, not porn books or magazines or whatever you seem to be talking about.
I have not, on the other hand, seen a free speech analysis hinge on the medium of delivery.
Why should it be neat like this? For guns, the court might look at the second amendment, its purpose role and intention, contrast those with the dangers of guns in the hands of children, and scope out the limits to the second amendment.
For speech, the court would do this analysis for the first amendment, and the outcome might be different, maybe also depending on the type of speech in question.
Not to mention, none of the founding fathers intended for the first amendment's "purpose role and intention" to include porn. Obscenity laws banned porn and anything remotely close.
Also, don't forget that the intention of Bill of Rights was to only be applied to the federal government not to the states. Prior to the 14th amendment and some time after it, states were not bound to follow any of the amendments. Since this is a state law if we were to base it on the "purpose role and intention" of the first amendment it wouldn't even apply to Louisiana.
Calling somebody a bot is a great argument.
>The second paragraph contains one outright false statement and another statement which is very likely to be false.
This is complete and utter nonsense. Obscenity is not and was never protected by the first amendment. Porn was considered to be obscene when the 1st amendment was created.
> The third paragraph is non sequitur since the 14 amendment is currently the law of the land.
The intent of the 14th amendment was not to push the bill of rights onto the states. This was a development that occurred well after the 14th amendment. The earliest you could argue the 14th amendment creating incorporated rights is 3 decades after it was created though many people consider it to be closer to be 50 years after the 14th amendment. The incorporated rights interpretation is extremely dubious and was not the intended purpose of the amendment.
Obscenity is NOT pornography. The case law says so. Instead of correcting your falsities, you persist in your delusions.
Your "interpretation" of the 14th amendment is radical, not supported by anyone on the Supreme court, would be a complete disaster in terms of liberty and public policy. Judging by your logic you must also be a supporter of the separate but equal doctrine.
I am saying when the first amendment was written, porn was considered to be obscene. Please point to a case in the 1700s that shows that porn was protected by the first amendment. I am not suggesting porn is considered obscene in the modern times. Of course if you stopped insulting me and actually read what I said you would know that. Of course, attacking somebody is much easier than actually addressing the points they make.
I fully agree my position on the 14th amendment is in the minority. However, I would mention that nobody interpreted it the way the majority does until decades after it was written. Surely, if the current opinion on it was the intention of the ratifiers, it would have been used that way in court cases shortly after the amendment was ratified. It wasn't used that way because no lawyer or judge thought that was what it meant. The radical position is the one that changed what it meant for their own political gains.
Second, the Supreme Court is not consistent on their rulings. They think some rights are only partially incorporated and others are fully incorporated. The 14th amendment makes no distinction on that. How do you explain that?
Without incorporated rights the states would need to protect any rights they saw fit to protect in their own laws and constitutions. This might lead to less rights. I assume states like California and New York would ban or heavily restrict guns. Ultimately, I think this would massively decrease the polarization in our country. If you like guns you would leave California. If you don't like guns you could move to California. We wouldn't be ramming down things like guns, abortions and what not onto everybody.
The justices also seem to use it to push their own political views. To use guns as an example again, the conservative justices push for the 2nd amendment to be incorporated and the liberal justices don't. This is the case on all sorts of different issues.
It is obvious you are not arguing in good faith. You cannot draw any conclusions on my support of the separate but equal doctrine based on anything I posted. At best, you can make an assumption on my views on the constitutionality of it. Just because I may, or may not, think something is constitutional does not mean I support or oppose it.
Keeping children from buying guns serves the obvious purpose of stopping children from accidentally killing people. It's much less clear how a child accessing a video could kill someone.
Porn is addictive and there is a correlation between porn and depression (the causation hasn't been proven yet). Both of those are public health issues.
It needs to be narrowly tailored, which this bill appears to be. If they mandated showing an ID before going on any site rather than strictly porn, then you might have a case.
It also needs to be the least restrictive way to effectively accomplish this. I can't think of a less restrictive way to ensure people under 18 cannot view porn than requiring an ID. You can't argue for a button saying you are over 18 since that is not effective.
Regardless, the original intent of the First Amendment was not to protect porn. It is clear that obscenity laws blocking porn were legal. I also reject the idea of incorporated rights and do not believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the States. Since this is a state law the First Amendment doesn't apply.
- it's a mere deterrent
- it's limited regionally
How'd they finangle that, every VPN I've used only let you select the country not the state?