Arkansas Proposes Requiring ID to Watch Porn Online
vice.com
vice.com
As a side note, I would love to be a fly on the wall when they try to legislate this on sites like and similar to 4chan. I suspect Tor onion sites will suddenly become very popular despite their slowness.
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202211/advocacy-groups-urge-...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/massive-pandemic...
Porn industry is not doing anything to prevent children from watching it.
If self-regulation is non-existent then the government has to step in.
I'm sick of people sucking at their responsibilities so much that they think the government doing it for them is a great option. It's lazy.
People are absolutely entitled to their own tastes, on or off camera, in a consensual setting. But I also think we can come up with better "on-ramps" to pornography and the wide variety of sex acts that exist in the world, without allowing young people to wander without warning into STEPMOM LET ME PUT IT WHERE?? DONT TELL DAD and YOUNG ANGEL TRIPLE GANGBANG and THINKING ABOUT MY CRUSH WHILE DOING FAIRLY EXTREME THINGS TO MY BUTT (a real title that I will never forget, and yes they were "extreme" even by today's standards).
Not to mention the subtle racism and often-not-subtle misogyny that still exists in traditional porn tropes, and IMO might be more harmful than actually watching porn itself.
Also the sheer amount of step-sibling porn on the free porn "tube" sites is especially weird and disconcerting, given that young people are most likely to see porn there and not on, say, an private OnlyFans channel or a production studio site like Brazzers.
Of course, we can't ever guide our children to healthy relationships with sex and pornography unless we actually talk about pornography with our children, which as a society we are not well-equipped to do.
It'll start with having no passwords to remember, but before you know it parts of the internet will quit working if you don't have a big tech company vouching for you (not a bot, is an adult, etc.). As long as you log in with your Microsoft/Google/Apple account everything will be great, but if you don't nothing will work.
Non-tech people will be easily convinced with claims that logging in everywhere ensures bots and bad actors are excluded while "good" users can surf anywhere without hitting captchas, etc..
It’s been a thing in the conservative (in the very broad sense, where this includes a substantial subset of the Democratic Party, as well as most of the GOP) end of US politics for a long time to ban, restrict, and discourage (by requiring private information that is guaranteed to eventually be exposed) access to porn for a long time, e.g., while it did not explicitly require ID, the Communication’s Decency Act of 1996 required age verification, which sites attempted to comply with (before it was struck down) by requiring credit cards on file for even free accounts.
Somewhat similar requirements were included in the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (which was also struck down.)
COPA being struck down chilled legislative pursuit of this, though not the desire for it; I suspect the reason it has come up again now is the evidence that we have a Supreme Court majority that is both ideologically socially conservative and much less concerned about established precedent, at least on politically salient issues of interest to their social ideology, than has been the case in living memory (or, perhaps, ever), and legislators want to take full advantage of that while it lasts.
I don't know that this is the work of ALEC, but its existence and goal is hardly some secret conspiracy.
Is there evidence such prohibition keeps kids safe? It’s the environment I grew up in. But the kids who had healthy home environments where such topics weren’t taboo seemed to have a leg up.
We limit alcohol, driving, tobacco, voting for minors because we judge them not smart enough to make good decisions. Why do you feel we should not exclude hardcore porn?
I don’t think kids should watch porn. I do think banning it will be as successful as we’ve been with alcohol, with the same blowback that comes from surrounding something in mystery and black markets.
To say that some will get around it doesn’t mean we should not do what is best for that group as a whole.
Unlimited and early extensive use of social media and hardcore porn is not healthy for kids. It will screw up their worldview. We should ban and limit them smartly if we want to support healthy kids.
So I agree with the goal: less porn in front of children. But I disagree with the method: trying to ban it.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/725020/age-of-first-alco...
The United States has one of the highest rates of alcohol addiction in the world.
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/alcoholism-by-country...
The majority of kids now have pretty much unlimited internet access and mental health issues have risen exponentially. Statistics don't seem to support your stance here.
I would also disagree that social media does a good job of banning porn. There's also sorts of nasty stuff that gets shown to kids on social media, not just porn but violence as well.
I remember writing much the same in a letter to the editor back in the late 90s, while I was still at school[0].
Only difference is, I was pointing out how weird it was that 16-year-old-me was banned by law from seeing acts that I was allowed to perform[0] while at the same time outright homicide was a thing that sometimes got included in cartoons specifically deemed suitable for young children.
[0] the UK age of consent is 16 but the age to go into adult shops or see adult films is 18… or at least it was when I was 16 myself, I've had no reason to check if it still is or not.
You can keep your kids safe by educating them about what is out there, and by troubleshooting what they can do when confronted with it, as well as having on-going discussions about whatever the topic is and providing safe, non-judgmental escape chutes for when they need it.
And even then, you just have to hope for the best.
My two cents, for what that's worth. I have no research to back this up, just my own experience with my kids.
The belief seems to be that ideological content is necessarily always entirely harmless, whereas nudity is magically harmful?
Not to mention widespread book-banning on the mere mention of LGBT people, which are deemed "not suitable for children" despite not actually having sexual content?
How do we actually determine harm here, and avoid being buffeted by propaganda? There's a long history of banning all sorts of things on think-of-the-children grounds. Things like "access to information about contraception" have previously been considered obscene. How do we avoid going round this discourse treadmill forever?
Possibly NAS sales will be up as people do massive downloads instead of "watching online?"
The issue here isn't that they need to know how reproductive parts work, it's that easy access to porn is unhealthy for a developing brain. Constant dopamine hits like that have been proven to lead to all sorts of mental health issues.
You also seem to think children have fully developed brains and are able to discern the difference between unhealthy fake porn and reality. This a scientifically, objectively wrong stance.
That seems like a claim that needs a citation. Pretty much everyone under the age of 35 has had 'easy access' to porn in their formative years. Are we all mentally ill?
Some people are able to overcome child abuse and live a life without any mental health issues, does that mean that child abuse isn't wrong?
You need to focus the conversation on underage kids as well. We're not discussing restrictions for adults. We as a society have obviously decided pedophilia is unacceptable because it's mentally damaging to kids who cannot yet conceive the implications of what they're doing, you ought to be able extrapolate from that and logically conclude unfettered underage porn access is also mentally damaging. This isn't some massive leap.
If you want to argue that a certain law is the best way control it, I can understand that. However, I cannot wrap my head around any argument that tries to say allowing kids to just view porn unrestricted is fine.
I mean, if you think that porn viewing is basically rape, you're making a pretty large leap here. I hope you attack children viewing violent content with the same fervor because I guess viewing an activity is the same as participating in it?
Is your argument here that it's a good thing for them to be accessing it as much and often as they want? You really don't think that causes ANY mental issues? I'd really like an answer here, because unless you're 100% on the let them look at all the porn they can get there hands on.... well I guess it's not so bizarre then is it?
Are you really going to sit there and try to argue that unfettered porn access is good for a child? Find me a citation that proves that please.
Here is the tell that shows you have absolutely no actual data or information to support your claim.
You aren't my professor, but you are making absurd, huge claims. You should expect to be challenged and show your sources. Just because you made something up in your head and feel its obvious, that doesn't make it true.
If this is something a state wants to do it might be more effective to come at it from the other end. Parents can install parental control software on their home computers and on their kid's devices. Schools can do similar on their computers.
Places that provide computers for public internet access would probably need to do age checks.
Kids could still get access to porn the traditional way of course. Make friends with kids whose parents are less restrictive and get them to get porn for you. That could be handled the way it has always been--declare the other kids bad influences and forbid your kids from seeing them.
It could also be handled by making it so that if your kids give other kids porn without their parents permission its treated the same as if your kids are giving alcohol to other underage kids. I.e., it is a failure of the parent's duty to supervise their child and they might be fined.
[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/1383/top-10-adult-website-hos...
(of course the kid didn't buy it, but the considerations are pretty similar for people preventing children from accessing other things)
Let's drop all FFL requirements for firearm purchases and we'll just let people click a tick box on a website saying they're over 18. After that we'll deliver the firearm straight to there front door.
All that's being asked here is that we actually ENFORCE the 18 year old age limit for porn.
Also, many states have laws that require gun owners to store their guns properly etc. and a kid just grabbing an improperly stored gun is illegal, therefore punishable by law.
There is no repercussion for illegal porn access and no onus on the porn provider to stop children from accessing it.
There is no state that allows someone under 21 to buy alcohol/booze, but somehow teenagers do actually find alcohol, how very peculiar.
Furthermore, with a lower limit to 18, there's still an overlap with seniors who turn 18 soon before graduating, thus the argument in that regard is not particularly convincing either.
If you peruse through [1], you will find that in a non insignificant number of cases, the perpetrator was an adult. This then suggests that in the remaining cases the perpetrator was a teenager or a child, thus rendering the argument not particularly convincing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th...
How does this support your stance on unrestricted porn access again? Requiring an ID for porn would be equivalent to requiring an ID for alcohol would it not?
Let's look at firearms as well since you seem to really think you've proven something with your statements. What state can I click a website check box saying I'm 18 and have as may firearms as I want show up in my house?
The idea that some people get around laws is never a justification to just do away with laws or not have them in the first place. This is even more true when it comes to children, our society is ENTIRELY built on the agreement that under 18 is not an adult and they do not have full rights or access to whatever they want. There is a good scientific reason for this.
> How does this support your stance on unrestricted porn access again? Requiring an ID for porn would be equivalent to requiring an ID for alcohol would it not?
No because in the former the website will be forced to share my details with the government, I will be in a database, with no way of removing myself from there. I can also show a fake ID for alcohol if I wish to.
The difference here is the tracking, and I can't trust that my data will not be logged.
consequences.
> Let's look at firearms as well since you seem to really think you've proven something with your statements. What state can I click a website check box saying I'm 18 and have as may firearms as I want show up in my house?
I didn't intend on proving anything except that that argument, meaning that no firearms are sold to 18 year olds legally, is bogus with respect to shootings carried via assault weapons.
What you appear not to grasp is the difference in the order of magnitude of the consequences.
Having access to guns with intention to do harm is, by all means, not equivalent to having access to porn unless the person is actively seeking for ways to commit harm, at which point they are well into Tor.
> The idea that some people get around laws is never a justification to just do away with laws or not have them in the first place. This is even more true when it comes to children, our society is ENTIRELY built on the agreement that under 18 is not an adult and they do not have full rights or access to whatever they want. There is a good scientific reason for this.
I have never claimed anything to the contrary.
However, you made my point quite well without realizing it. I merely replaced a few words of a segment in your comment, and appended a clause.
What state can I purchase an assault rifle from a legal shop and have as many assault rifles as I want sold to me, if assault rifles are completely banned from the country?
You agreed, right there, that laws should exist even if people do seek for ways to go around them, and that making it harder to do a bad thing works. It follows then that reducing access and imposing further restrictions on ownership will make access significantly harder for bad actors, be it children or otherwise.
" (while the age for rifle is federally 18...) Exceptions to this include if the gun is to be used for specified activities including employment, ranching, farming, target practice and hunting. "
and
" For example, in Vermont it’s legal to sell a handgun or rifle to someone over 16. In Maine, Alaska, Minnesota or New York State you can sell a rifle to someone over 16. In Minnesota, as long as it’s not in the city, you can sell a rifle to a 14-year-old without parental consent. "
Seems confirmed by ( https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/minimum-age-to-pur.... ):
" Age 14 or 15 and has a firearms safety certificate "
All you're doing is showing me there are restrictions are access to firearms and a plethora of enforcement/laws saying how younger kids can use them.
If your point is to say we don't need any restrictions on porn access you kinda failed.
Lastly, I don't think shooting a firearm for fun or hunting is at all equivalent to unrestricted access to porn that has proven to rewire young brains in a negative way.
Now, imagine a minor growing up with exposure to these images. How will this affect their behavior towards girls and their understanding of sexuality?
Pornography often portrays an unrealistic and distorted view of sex and relationships, which can lead to unhealthy and unrealistic expectations. Limiting access to porn can help promote a healthier and more realistic view of sexuality.
So yes, I strongly believe we should limit access to porn.
"Saw" on the other hand? For that franchise, I find even the adverts disturbing… though not as disturbing as the logical conclusion that a significant number of people must be responding to those adverts with "that looks interesting, I desire to spend two hours looking at cinematic footage of the content that this image or clip only hints at".
As a lifelong homosexual, I strongly disagree with your notion that all porn promotes harmful stereotypes against women. In fact, I would argue that 100% of the porn I've watched in recent memory includes no forms of gender-based power dynamic.
> Now, imagine a minor growing up with exposure to these images. How will this affect their behavior towards girls and their understanding of sexuality?
This is the job of a parent. If parents don't want to acknowledge that their children are watching porn and being exposed to ideas that are harmful (for whatever you deem harmful), the parents are negligent in teaching the kids to be respectful, empathetic young adults.
> Limiting access to porn can help promote a healthier and more realistic view of sexuality.
Banning porn doesn't stop this. In fact, it makes the problem worse! You can't stop people from making or covertly distributing porn. It's physically impossible without turning off the internet. All you're accomplishing is making the problem less visible and more taboo to discuss. See: decades of "the war on drugs"
As well-intentioned as I think you are, there's zero evidence to suggest limiting access to porn will do any good at all and mountains of evidence to suggest the contrary. And all to avoid having difficult conversations about sexuality with minors.
Porn shows unrealistic sex and it’s bad that people learn from it? Then make porn that shows how to have better sex.
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20230207-france-to-introduce-ne...
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_INSIGHT_REPORT_Digital%20I...
The vagueness of the bill is a feature, not a bug. Vague laws exist so the enforcers can target their enemies rather than have a fair execution of the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_pornography#...
This topic pops up all over the world regardless of political leaning https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34781021
> cmh89: The right wing is trying to get this through to lead us towards a christian nationalist theocracy.
> haunter: This is happening in France which is not left leaning.
> cmh89: The person proposing this in France is right leaning.
> DrThunder: We're not talking about who is doing this.
But that is literally what cmh89 and haunter are discussing here. I would agree your argument could be applicable to cmh89's first statement, but at this point in the thread the very argument being had is around who is proposing this and what their motives are.
However I don't think it's accurate to say "regardless of political leaning" - just scratch the surface of the lobbying groups (and age verification companies!) backing these bills and you'll see it's conservative Christians all the way down.
This is not just a right-wing Christian morality stance. There's a myriad of studies showing the increasingly harmful affects of letting young brains just access porn whenever they want. It rewires their brains in some pretty negative ways. This along with social media, and the trend of just letting small children play on tablets all day long need to stop.
Online porn is way to easy to access online, and there's no way it's good for children. And before I get called a puritan, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about sites like onlyfans or even a mainstream production company likes brazzers. There is some truly horrific porn out there that is a single google search away. You can watch women being beaten, gagged, urinated on, made to vomit. You can find upskirt videos, revenge porn, "consensual nonconsent" that really makes you wonder if the women involved knew what they were consenting to. You can even find beastiality, which I thought was illegal! Truly disgusting things that children should not be able to access are readily available for anyone of any age to see through a google search.
That being said, I don't trust porn sites to handle IDs safely, and I would never want to give mine to them. But maybe that's a good thing if it keeps people out and hurts the disgusting people who produce this stuff.
Having said that, requiring ID is not a good solution and likely not to work
What you're suggesting doesn't fully work on a young undeveloped brain. This is the equivalency of telling a teenager that drugs are bad. Kids, especially teenagers aren't rational. This is why we have laws in place that don't treat them like adults until they're at least 18 and sometimes 21.
The idea that you're going to just sit them down and re-educate them appropriately when there's essentially unlimited access to this stuff is pure silliness.
Perhaps there are good intentions behind this law --although I suspect it comes from pressure by hate groups -- however this is not the way. Seems like involving parents and educating kids is the best option.