Supreme Court to Hear Case on Texas Law Restricting Access to Porn (nytimes.com) 130
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to a Texas law requiring age verification to access online pornography, which opponents argue violates the First Amendment by discouraging adults from viewing such material due to privacy concerns. A federal judge blocked the law citing its chilling effect on free speech, but a divided appeals court upheld it, emphasizing the government's interest in protecting minors; the case will now be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Texas bill in question, HB 1181, was passed into law last June. The New York Times reports: The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear a challenge to a Texas law that seeks to limit minors' access to pornography on the internet by requiring age verification measures like the submission of government-issued IDs. A trade group, companies that produce sexual materials and a performer challenged the law, saying that it violates the First Amendment right of adults. The law does not allow companies to retain information their users submit. But the challengers said adults would be wary of supplying personal information for fear of identity theft, tracking and extortion. [...]
In urging the Supreme Court to leave the law in place while it considers whether to hear the case, Ken Paxton, Texas' attorney general, said pornography available on the internet is "orders of magnitude more graphic, violent and degrading than any so-called 'girlie' magazine of yesteryear." He added: "This statute does not prohibit the performance, production or even sale of pornography but, more modestly, simply requires the pornography industry that make billions of dollars from peddling smut to take commercially reasonable steps to ensure that those who access the material are adults. There is nothing unconstitutional about it."
In urging the Supreme Court to leave the law in place while it considers whether to hear the case, Ken Paxton, Texas' attorney general, said pornography available on the internet is "orders of magnitude more graphic, violent and degrading than any so-called 'girlie' magazine of yesteryear." He added: "This statute does not prohibit the performance, production or even sale of pornography but, more modestly, simply requires the pornography industry that make billions of dollars from peddling smut to take commercially reasonable steps to ensure that those who access the material are adults. There is nothing unconstitutional about it."
Pornhub (Score:5, Funny)
Get that gratuity basket all ready to deliver. Thomas takes a 2XL MAGA shirt in case anyone is wondering.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If I were a porn distributor, I'd hire a bunch of analysts to try to figure out which porn requests are coming from the private residences of the legislators and attorneys general who are pushing these bills, and send them an itemized list, along with a note that says, "It took us two weeks of logs analysis to figure out that these likely came from your residence. Are you sure you want to make it take two minutes in the future?" and then just sit back and wait for the blustering to stop.
Re: Pornhub (Score:1, Offtopic)
First of all, blackmail is illegal. Second, even if they did access porn (which is not at all guaranteed, youâ(TM)ll find out you can be satisfied with a love life when you become an adult and actually do the things with real women), there are much better sites than PornHub, PornHub is just what the US can reasonably exercise authority over.
Re: (Score:1)
He didn't say "or else" or imply it.
But I'd just release that same info publicly.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
First of all, blackmail is illegal.
What I'm proposing isn't blackmail, per se. Blackmail would be threatening to expose that information to the voters. What I'm suggesting is pointing out that with all their resources, it took a lot of effort to figure out what they had watched, which means that it would be very hard for someone to disclose that information to the politicians' constituents without the company's authorization. But if the law stands, any hacker that illegally gains access to their systems would be able to instantly correlat
Re: Pornhub (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, major disclaimer: My source is anecdotal direct job experience. Take it or leave it, it's just to be generally informative. As always, take anecdotes with a minute serving of NaCl and apply your own sense and jade to it. Specifics are faded into the wetware memory rot of time
In the work I did, we were well aware that around 70% of politicians viewed this 'adult content' regularly - like a minimum of weekly. When 'government workers' of all types were included, the number went up substantially. More importantly, a larger than expected - I don't have exact numbers right now but it was in the 1-5% range IIRC - were directly involved in the background of running one or more Adult Entertainment sites as a side gig. Especially specialty and niche ones and they got very specific.
The thing that was definitely constant was that there was not really any pattern to who looked at or created the stuff. Young, old, prude, proud, across the spectrum of government. And the dichotomy was often extreme too. A government official who was on record repeatedly ranting about alternate lifestyles ruining family values also ran a 'twink snuff buffet' site that made more money than their day job. Yes... 'Do, Kill, Eat'. Thankfully staged and fake. Work was never anything if not interesting.
Anyway, I'm gonna go snag some brain bleach now and continue to watch this with a proper FIA attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
"we were well aware that around 70% of politicians viewed this 'adult content' regularly - like a minimum of weekly"
So your net failed to track the other 30% [or they were just old enough to have low t/etc]. I'd imagine the rate among the politicians is essentially the same as the general population and thus inclusive of everyone with a sex drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe age, maybe embarrassment, maybe less frequent use, maybe interpersonal dynamics, maybe they only looked while at public libraries, maybe they only went to (or ran) 'oddcore' sites* that were technically...(?) but not really? ... I can only speculate on that. I won't shame anybody for looking, and I won't shame them for not looking. ^.^
(* Kinks that are definitely "Happy-Making" content to some viewers, but don't qualify for 'porn' classification despite the use people put them to. The 'crusty-haired
Re: (Score:1)
We are talking specifically about PornHub, not all adult content. There are many adult websites that aren't just free 2m clips, plenty of social media sites exist as well.
Re: (Score:1)
"you can be satisfied with a love life when you become an adult and actually do the things with real women"
Uh huh, I think you are full of shit.
"there are much better sites than PornHub"
So, you found this out because you don't actually do things with real women or because you are full of shit and everyone masturbates no matter how much sex they have?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I know because I was young once. Now I am older and have/can afford better outlets, such as actual clubs where you can meet real people also interested in having sex. I went to a club in DC and there were plenty of people there that are involved in government.
If I ever have the age and wealth of a politician, why the hell would you go look at PornHub specifically, they are basically "free 2 minute porn clips" and when you get to any premium content, the problem of age verification is basically moot beca
Re: (Score:2)
"Now I am older and have/can afford better outlets, such as actual clubs where you can meet real people also interested in having sex."
Again this false narrative that it is one vs the other. If you go to that club every night it might replace an evening wank but not the morning and noon. Further if you are getting that much action in clubs those would have to be gay bars. I think Charlie Sheen demonstrated that even a celeb could blow $50M/yr being straight and trying to get as much action as a gay guy.
Mayb
Re: (Score:2)
Porn/sex and cannabis addiction are all just scams that flavor of facility uses like small towns use speed traps.
I bet you try to pretend people turned on by underage but post-pubescent females are pedophiles as well. I prefer to believe that think virtue signaling and attacking others will save them... seems preferable to assuming they are ACTUAL pedophiles and don't realize that it is normal to have your eyes drawn to 16-17yr old bending over in a short skirt [even if a decent human chooses not to act on
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That is pure genius. And, there's the implication.
Re: (Score:3)
"He was obsessed with porn," Lillian McEwen, tells the paper. "He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting." [yahoo.com]
But seriously, the First Amendment was a shadow of its current self up until the 1960s-- and "obscene" material (however you define it) can still be banned outright . So I expect the Texas law to be mostly upheld, much to the chagrin of Ted Cruz' interns [vanityfair.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that. Show up outside their houses and project the porn they prefer onto their house/garage/whatever and crank the volume to the max allowed by local ordinance. If that's too extreme, or you actually worried about children seeing it, instead project just their search history while playing the sounds to videos from those results.
Re: (Score:1)
They would never do it because it would absolutely kill their business cold but if GRINDR ever decided to release their database, shit would go down. Imagine how many high profile conservatives and christian taliban members are secretly using it. More than a few I'd wager.
PornHub isn't rich enough to compete (Score:4, Interesting)
Thomas ain't getting out of bed for anything less than a billionaire. He's already got a billionaire sugar daddy so he's not going to downgrade.
It is absolutely bad shit insane that I know someone is going to read my comment and they're upset because they are perfectly okay with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito being completely corrupt and on the take so long as they keep making decisions they agree with.
Meanwhile I've got people on the left wing frustrated to Joe Biden is going to abuse the power the supreme Court decision just gave him...
Re: (Score:1)
bat shit, not bad shit, you faker.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"Thomas ain't getting out of bed for anything less than a billionaire. He's already got a billionaire sugar daddy so he's not going to downgrade."
This is shit talking the oldest, longest running, and most respected member of the court in the partisan fashion for a few clerical errors on his disclosure paperwork [ignoring the liberal justices who took millions from publishers then actually ruled on their cases] and for no reason whatsoever.
This is offtopic, flamebait, and the comment about knowing someone wi
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats on finding some random retired judge with TDS who'd say he disagrees. That does not make for any sort of king powers.
It is impossible for a President to function in office without doing things which would be illegal for anyone else, just as it is impossible for most of the executive. Yet, despite every military order they give being illegal for a citizen of the united states, even planning the engagement would be illegal. Half the things a President orders planned and then rejects upon legal advice
Gratuities aren't legal (Score:2)
That won't help any, because the kind of gratuities they were talking about in Snyder (the case you're referencing) are still federally illegal under 18 USC 201, as the recent SCOTUS ruling [supremecourt.gov] pointed out.
Re: (Score:2)
In what world is shit talking a political party not flamebait? Are there ANY legitimate mods left?
up next HARD CORE pron on broadcast TV the FCC law (Score:3)
up next HARD CORE pron on broadcast TV the FCC laws get in the way of the 1st!
Re: (Score:3)
If you're so old you still watch over-the-air broadcast TV, hardcore porn will probably give you a heart attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
up next HARD CORE pron on broadcast TV the FCC laws get in the way of the 1st!
Wait... is porn not allowed on broadcast TV in America? My masturbating European teenage childhood waiting until my parents went to bed so I could watch some porn after midnight is confused at this. How prude.
Re: (Score:2)
up next HARD CORE pron on broadcast TV the FCC laws get in the way of the 1st!
Wait... is porn not allowed on broadcast TV in America? My masturbating European teenage childhood waiting until my parents went to bed so I could watch some porn after midnight is confused at this. How prude.
Nope, no nudity and no real profanity is allowed on any type of over the air broadcast medium in the US. This is why movies edited for TV have most of the cursing and all sex/nudity cut out (and only the most graphic violence) and songs on the radio have profanity edited out. Cable TV and satellite radio can pretty much do whatever they want, though only certain networks tend to have nudity or hard profanity.
Re: (Score:2)
up next HARD CORE pron on broadcast TV the FCC laws get in the way of the 1st!
That's because the OTA spectrum ostensibly belongs to the public, which the government then licenses to the broadcast companies with attached requirements that they adhere to certain community standards as part of the deal. If you think that's something, wait until you hear about all the things you're not allowed to do in public parks either.
This is not a free speech issue! (Score:1)
Re:This is not a free speech issue! (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is a free speech issue, then any time someone asks for your ID to verify your age, it would also be a violation.
Asking for an ID isn't the violation. Putting restrictions on porn is a strict scrutiny basis. That is no case creates an "in general" rule that applies to everything, each specific instant have to be brought before the court to rule on a case-by-case basis. Texas' law is no different in this aspect.
This is because the term obscene is something that's "eye of the beholder" (there's an actual test called the Miller test that you can read up on elsewhere) here and is why there is a handbrake process on just allowing things like this to take effect without actual review. Once a State has a law to puts obscene things behind very traceable ID limitations, who is to say what is and is not obscene? That's kind of the reason there's a review and why these kinds of cases don't create some sort of standard. These are things that need to be approached carefully.
So because this falls under Texas providing some definition of "obscene" and then putting that behind an ID requirement, that's why this falls into a free speech case. Before you can lock something away for "obscene" it needs review by the courts.
Re:This is not a free speech issue! (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Asking for an ID isn't the violation [...]Before you can lock something away for "obscene" it needs review by the courts."
It may not be the legal issue, but I think the key issue here is that it isn't just locking it away behind age verification, it is locking it behind verifying WHO YOU ARE, which destroys anonymity for adults. And this will spread until there is no way to consume anything anywhere online that the government wants to label as "bad" without disclosing who you are first. Very dangerous slippery slope kinda stuff.
I will say it until I am blue in the face- it is up to PARENTS and their chosen agents to prevent minors from uncontrolled access to the internet. Porn is just a tiny bit of the damage that unfettered internet access can do/will do/has done to young minds. It shouldn't be the government's job. If you really want to involve the government, then have it issue public awareness, have it encourage development of appropriate devices, and have it go after bad parents who are not taking reasonable precautions, as being child abusers (because that is exactly what I think it is to give an unrestricted internet device to a child).
We should not destroy the freedom of all adults because parents/agents are not protecting their children from online crap.
Re: (Score:2)
We should not destroy the freedom of all adults because parents/agents are not protecting their children from online crap.
The USA that you knew is all gone. 1776, 1863, Federalist Papers, the concept of Freedom, etc all gone. Sure, you and I still believe in it, but groups of people have been allowed to form that have bent and twisted the people of the United States until they just can't afford to care anymore. It is over. The only thing left is to either battle the authoritarians individually or submit to them. Look at what is going on right now. An openly corrupt Supreme Court making rulings that allow unethical people to do
Re: (Score:2)
So because this falls under Texas providing some definition of "obscene" and then putting that behind an ID requirement, that's why this falls into a free speech case. Before you can lock something away for "obscene" it needs review by the courts.
Isn't there a case dealing with what is actually considered smut? I thought it was the Larry Flynt case but that was a genuine free speech issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of that, there's plenty of good argument against ID verification laws, but, free speech isn't one of them. If someone wants to make a free speech argument, then you have to argue against all restrictions of all porn, so if you can't block it online, you can't block it in a sto
Re: (Score:2)
Except porn is already restricted
No, the sale of it is restricted. That's part of Congress and, via the 10th Amendment, the State's right to regulate commerce. There's a very important difference between the two.
If a 5-year-old walks into a store will they sell him a porn mag
And even here, you realize, it's the sale that's regulated but you conflate it with a free speech argument. Selling something isn't exercising freedom of speech, it's just exercising your first sale doctrine or interstate commerce or any of the other number of things various sales fall into.
That's why this isn't a free speech issue, because there are laws restricting the access already in effect.
The laws restrict the sale. You can l
Re: (Score:2)
For this to enter a free speech argument, the restriction would have to be somehow ban all "porn" across
Re: (Score:2)
I mean your comment is the exact reason it's a first amendment argument.
From the law you hear the usual Miller text.
the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest
And if you look that up you'll see that it deals with the first amendment. [wikipedia.org] I mean clearly this is your first rodeo.
The reason why it's a first amendment issue is that particular spot right there. Whose standards are we applying?
In that context the LGBT site is worse, because it's promoting pseudo-paedophilia
You can have that opinion, but others have demonstrated in various courts of law opposite of what you've indicated. So the LGBTQ community has demonstrated a valid s
Re: (Score:2)
You also misunderstood my argument about SOME LGBTQ groups supporting pseudo-paedophilia. If you think having an attraction to minors is not only okay, but should be protected, then you're really no better than the "wonderful" people who appeared on "To Catch a Predator". I would never claim ALL LGBT groups support minor attraction, they might recogniz
Re: (Score:2)
No, I've absolutely demonstrated why it's not a free speech argument
No you've demonstrated nothing, provided zero backing evidence, not so much as even a link to anything that supports your argument. You've literally just been shouting at clouds and demonstrating that you can not even debate. More to the point:
If you think having an attraction to minors is not only okay, but should be protected, then you're really no better than the "wonderful" people who appeared on "To Catch a Predator".
If you can not even take an argument that's being forwarded without making it a personal attack, then you are here for your own self-righteousness. The point I was attempting to make is that you can literally use that argument for scouting and religious groups. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is not a free speech issue! (Score:1)
Exactly, it has been decided before that this is not an issue for alcohol, tobacco, firearms. I would prefer that no ID was required by the government in any private transaction, but people have to be consistent, either you want the government involved in your business or you donâ(TM)t.
Both R and D are on the center-left and far-left respectively for this issue which is overall bad. If we had any constitutionalists left they would throw the whole issue out and declare government ID to be only used for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not saying there does not exist a means to verify someone's identity, but that does not require a government identity card. Most people have a credit score that is wholly unrelated to any government ID, commercial entities can actually match people even when that person moves from one country to another and changes names.
What any commercial entity is really interested in is your credit worthiness, if you wreck the 50k car, they just need to know you have insurance or are able to pay them back. Same for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks who is smarter than the Supreme Court! Maybe you should file a third party amicus brief and mansplain it to them.
Don't need to go that far. Some simple gratuities are all that's required.
Aha! (Score:5, Funny)
So THAT is why Trump wanted Presidential immunity.
It was never about porn (Score:3)
It's frustrating that I'm one of the few people in America well enough educated to understand why it's important that library records be kept private. Your internet history is nothing more than a library record...
Re: (Score:2)
You're strawmanning (Score:2)
I wonder what kinda weird kinks you have. For the right price I'll be able to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
^^^ Exactly this
I expanded on it, below, here: https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] already.
Also, you simply cannot compare this to a library, because you can go into a library and look at anything you want with no record at all. That isn't going to happen online when you have to "register" to get into the front door. And then records will be kept on every single thing you do.
As far as I am aware, there is no workable AND reasonable way to ONLY age verify online right now. Period. And if there were, I doub
Re: (Score:2)
They already have multiple giant databases of every single website you visit.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about tracking you. They're going to have a giant database of every single website you connect to.
LOL, "they" already do have that information. "They" want official government ID to validate the truth of their data.
DOA (Score:1)
Re:DOA (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Strip clubs and adult book stores have a long history of requiring ID to enter."
False equivalence.
They are, as far as I know, not keeping records of who you are and storing that in a database. They are looking at your apparent age, then your ID age and checking the photo against you, and then handing the ID back to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything stopping them from doing that?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The "chilling effect" as described, and its impact on their business viability. Legally, potentially privacy regulations and laws, depending on jurisdiction.
Despite 'Data Is King' and data being very profitable, strip clubs that aren't legally prevented from tracking it don't anyway because the end cost would be more than the value. The law in question here is to force them to track it and take on that end cost, and everybody else to take on the societal cost.
Note: Cost is a general term in this use, n
Re: (Score:2)
It won't chill anyone if their ID and/or face are being recorded without their knowledge. Until someone finally spills the beans.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. And since a law requiring that record being kept is very obvious 'spilled beans', the law creates the chilling effect immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Anything stopping them from doing that?"
Stopping who from doing what?
Stopping bars and such from RECORDING your ID? Yeah, the customers can. I don't go to bars or buy alcohol or go to strip clubs, but you can bet if I saw them trying to take photos or "scans" of my ID, or keying info from it into some system, I would either refuse or leave. That is NOT an age check.
I did that in Target a few years ago when I had a can of *air* (like computer duster) in my cart which I was buying as a birthday presen
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think you would even know?
Re: (Score:2)
>"What makes you think you would even know?"
I have eyes?
I mean, yeah, they could be using some type of super spy tech. But I don't think that is likely.
Re: (Score:2)
A night club tried that around here some years back, scanning ID that is. There was a lot of push back from the costumers, made the news, and they stopped.
People don't mind showing ID, they do mind it being recorded.
Re: (Score:2)
So their next step is either quietly scanning the ID without you knowing and/or facial databases fed by their CCTV network. Oops.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to scan the ID without you seeing. Yes, facial recognition can be a problem
Re: (Score:2)
There's no law that says adult stores can't log people that enter if they want to. And people could refuse it and not get entry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are, as far as I know, not keeping records of who you are and storing that in a database.
Ever walked into a club and had a bouncer scan your ID card? They didn't even look at it. The little machine gave a green light or a red light. The little machine recorded the event.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Ever walked into a club and had a bouncer scan your ID card? They didn't even look at it. The little machine gave a green light or a red light. The little machine recorded the event."
I have never been into any club or event that required an ID. But if I did, I would *NEVER* hand my ID to someone. I would show it (while holding it), and if I saw it was going to be scanned, I would immediately retract the ID. It would then be THEIR choice to either look at it with their eyes only, or to ask me to leav
Re:DOA (Score:5, Insightful)
If there was a case then it already would be filed against proving your age to buy alcohol.
There is almost nothing legally in common with the government requiring ID verification before you can seeing someone elses free speech. (porn) and entering into a commercial transaction to purchase alcohol.
The alcohol situation is even more laughably out-of-touch in a supreme court case context because with alcohol you have the whole layer of the 18th amendment and the history of prohibition, and a raft of very special purpose legislation and constitutional amendments and repeals around it. It really can't be safely compared to anything else.
Likewise although at least much less ridiculously off-topic, mandating ID to physically *enter* a commercial premises with a specific business license is really not a "free speech" issue either, its pretty straightforward business regulation stuff.
Putting something on the public web for public consumption is definitely 'speech' .
Requiring one wishing to speak to the public, to collect ID before being allowed to speak is a free speech issue.
I'm not guessing a winner, especially with the current supreme court, but your comparisons simply aren't relevant at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't address that at all because it wasn't the subject. The poster i responded to compared this case to alcohol sales, and licensed bars, and I responded that those cases had nothing whatsoever in common with this one.
Now you are moving the goalposts and demanding comparison with existing age verification for physical porn. That's fine, its a much more intelligent argument than the original one about alcohol.
"the government already requiring age verification for porn right this fucking minute in every state??"
Do they set the age to go into the shop? Or do they set the age to complete a purchase? 7-11 use
Re: (Score:2)
Hell back in the 80s when I was stationed in Orlando, FL. serving alcohol in strip clubs was prohibited, but they still card everyone before entry. The strip clubs had a 3 drink minimum and people ended up paying $5 per Coke just to get in ($5 in 1988 would have gotten you top shelf bourbon at a high end nightclub).
If you walked into just a porn shop (magazines, d
Re: (Score:2)
also just checked OH and found this:
761.14 SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR ADULT BOOTHS. ..
(g) Age Limitations.
(1) No Sexually Oriented Business Establishment Employee or Sexually Oriented Business Establishment Patron at an Adult Booth or a Licensed Premises that includes an Adult Booth shall be under the age of 18.
(2) No person under the age of 18 shall be allowed to any Adult Booth or a
Re: (Score:3)
What if the state made a law saying everyone had to provide id when viewing firearm related websites?
Re: (Score:2)
The California law, passed as AB 2571 by the Democrat-controlled California Assembly and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in June 2022, provides for a civil penalty of $25,000 for any and each instance of firearm-related marketing to persons under the age of 18. That includes the “...use, or ownership of firearm-related products...” as well as “... events where firearm-related products are sold or used.”
Soon after it went into effect, most online firearm-related websites – Guns.com
Re: (Score:2)
I went to guns.com and it just asked if I was over 18. Very different from having them verify my id.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While that may be true, that applies to businesses that are operated locally and do not (in any immediate sense) transact across state lines. It makes sense for state or local governments to regulate them, at least to the extent that state/local governments can regulate any business.
PornHub operates across state lines, constantly. Guess who regulates interstate commerce?
That being said, the argument being brought before the court is a free speech argument rather than anything related to the interstate com
Re: (Score:2)
If porn is criminalized, only criminals will have (Score:5, Funny)
If porn is criminalized, only criminals will have porn. Then they'll be the happy ones, and I'll just have to jerk off to my guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funnier as the best joke, but I was hoping the story would have more than four Funnies (as of now).
But I'm seriously considering an AskSlashdot about Court reform. Then again, that topic feels too moot now. Plus the sadness that I outlived Ben Franklin's republic...
I guess Texas isn't so free after all (Score:2)
"orders of magnitude more graphic, violent and degrading than any so-called 'girlie' magazine of yesteryear."
In the 70s, when I lived off & on in Montreal, it wasn't hard to find bookstores with some *very* niche stuff - for a while "monopede mania" was a thing and several independent stores downtown carried spanking fetish mags with schoolgirls with bare butts with red marks & cane stripes on the covers
IQ Test (Score:3)
This is an IQ test. If you don't know what a VPN is, or how it is used, you fail.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an IQ test. If you don't know what a VPN is, or how it is used, you fail.
If your only goal in life is to watch porn, then yes, this is an IQ test. If you value the concept of Freedom, then this is an abomination that must be fought. If you want your child to be ashamed and ignorant when they grow up, stop asking the rest of to comply in your efforts.
Zero Knowledge Identity (Score:2)
I hate to say this but I think this is needed (Score:2)
Growing up (I'm older) you had to be 18 I think to buy a playboy. I think even video based porn required you be 21 to rent/buy.
Having seen porn, I don't really think 13 year olds need to see anal gang bangs quite yet. The internet really has changed things and while I am not aware of the changes in mental health of children I'd imagine there are plenty of studies on it.
Just a random article I picked off Google. I think there is alot of things here that should be obvious and there is evidence to back it:
P
Re: (Score:1)
Massive privacy invasion if it works But it won't (Score:2)
Merely asking the child to give their birthdate, or similar information does not work. Any 10 year old can get around the typical age verification systems.
That does not mean we cannot get a good age verification system.
There exists countries with massive privacy invasions that can indeed stop children from viewing pornography online. They require things like using specific accounts and tying computers to those accounts, with passwords and major penalties for sharing that password with anyone - even your ow
Of course they said (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The beating of a conservative" is a daily activity
Normally hardcore porn has you beating something else.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
In the waning years of /. can we just eliminate AC posts entirely and let posters wear their karma one way or the other?
Re: (Score:2)
No, the owners only care about ad impressions, and AC posting means more posts which means more pages which means more ads.
Welcome to capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]