Hacker News Reader

I feel like those laws are different because they specifically target pornography, which is seen as an evangelical moral sin. They would prefer to ban it completely, but that most likely runs afoul of the Constitution. So their next best bet is just to try to limit it to over-18s.

Obviously the end result is the same, but I think the motivation is different.

View on HN

> They would prefer to ban it completely, but that most likely runs afoul of the Constitution. So their next best bet is just to try to limit it to over-18s.

They dont care about constitution. And they are in position to reinterpret it however they want to, regardless of its text and meaning.

If that was actually true then states would have banned or blocked already. This is not a new issue and it has been challenged unsuccessfully many times.

That was before conservatives stopped caring about pretending they care about constitution.

They dont really care about porn now tho.

>which is seen as an evangelical moral sin

Maybe. Most of the debate that I hear feels similar to social media commentary -- teen boys getting their brains fried by constant access to stimulus. I don't hear anything about onanism or sinning.

Mind you, I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but just that most of the arguments I hear are saying "we think this is an identifiable and secular harm."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com