I get the argument that porn is protected free speech & I mostly agree with it (I also understand the counterargument that makes some valid points), but we've had porn requiring proof of age since forever. If age requirements/background checks don't violate the 2nd amendment, how does it for the 1st? Does social media like X having a min age of 13 violating the free speech rights of 12 yr olds??
Perhaps the most absurd thing about this is that back when they used to sell physical porn magazines at the gas station or whatever, they would check IDs. Nobody ever complained that their First Amendment rights were violated.
If age requirements/background checks don't violate the 2nd amendment, how does it for the 1st?
They do violate the 2nd amendment, it's just most people don't care.
That said, I personally feel the main issue with the porn bill is:
“People will be particularly concerned about accessing controversial speech when the state government can log and track that access,” Ezra wrote. “By verifying information through government identification, the law will allow the government to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people’s lives.”
Yes, this already exists with gun laws. And, I do not think they should exist with gun laws. But, there's a big difference between having to flash a driver's license to some bored store clerk to the government keeping logs of who is visiting particular websites, when and for how long. Especially because governments are already locking people up for saying naughty things online - how long until they start locking people up for reading naughty things online?
how long until they start locking people up for reading naughty things online?
They already are, just not as directly as they will try to in the future. Past internet history is being used to stack addition charges on people, or simply smear their character to push a sentence, even if it has nothing to do with the alleged crime.
It's the way they are trying to enforce the law. I 100% agree that children and teens should not be viewing pornographic material, but by requiring ID they're essentially creating a back door for digital ID. first it will just be the vices like porn and video games, but eventually they will tie your internet history to your ID and give you a social credit score. that's what they are really trying to do with these laws.
there is already a network level flag that allows adult content sites to mark themselves as adult content. What should be happening is routers and Internet devices should be blocking this traffic by default, requiring an admin to go in and disable the filter in order to view the content. this creates adult internet access points and safe internet access points, thus eliminating the need to personally identify oneself and allowing anonymous browsing to continue. this also allows laws to be created that penalize knowingly giving a child access to an adult internet access point.
It's technically quite feasible to issue someone an anonymous "I am over 18" validation method that isn't connected to other ID aspects (name, address, etc).
we've had porn requiring proof of age since forever. If age requirements/background checks don't violate the 2nd amendment, how does it for the 1st?
One thing is scope. There's tons of limits on what the government can ask for, or how they can store it. In context of the 2nd, it's been found unconstitutional to build a database of gun owners, even though each individual store is required to store data on their customers.
I'd argue it's kind of the same for porn and the 1st: You can say 'you're not allowed to view this unless you're eighteen,' but it's gets much more intrusive and dangerous if you're required to provide ID. So some things could be found constitutional, but pushing it too far could in theory be unconstitutional, at least according to the courts. I'd argue we already have a shit ton of unconstitutional laws that are deemed just fine, but that's a different conversation.
There is nothing stopping the government from building that porn user database the same way how the ATF is not supposed to use 4473 forms to build a database, but they did it anyway.
Sure there is, since you can currently mostly-anonymously access porn. If they put ID laws in place that would change. And we certainly shouldn't make it easier and set precedent in such a direction, just because they could currently use workarounds to achieve the same end.
I get the argument that porn is protected free speech & I mostly agree with it (I also understand the counterargument that makes some valid points), but we've had porn requiring proof of age since forever. If age requirements/background checks don't violate the 2nd amendment, how does it for the 1st? Does social media like X having a min age of 13 violating the free speech rights of 12 yr olds??
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1697601596094603418
They do violate the 2nd amendment, it's just most people don't care.
That said, I personally feel the main issue with the porn bill is:
Yes, this already exists with gun laws. And, I do not think they should exist with gun laws. But, there's a big difference between having to flash a driver's license to some bored store clerk to the government keeping logs of who is visiting particular websites, when and for how long. Especially because governments are already locking people up for saying naughty things online - how long until they start locking people up for reading naughty things online?
They already are, just not as directly as they will try to in the future. Past internet history is being used to stack addition charges on people, or simply smear their character to push a sentence, even if it has nothing to do with the alleged crime.
It's the way they are trying to enforce the law. I 100% agree that children and teens should not be viewing pornographic material, but by requiring ID they're essentially creating a back door for digital ID. first it will just be the vices like porn and video games, but eventually they will tie your internet history to your ID and give you a social credit score. that's what they are really trying to do with these laws.
there is already a network level flag that allows adult content sites to mark themselves as adult content. What should be happening is routers and Internet devices should be blocking this traffic by default, requiring an admin to go in and disable the filter in order to view the content. this creates adult internet access points and safe internet access points, thus eliminating the need to personally identify oneself and allowing anonymous browsing to continue. this also allows laws to be created that penalize knowingly giving a child access to an adult internet access point.
It's technically quite feasible to issue someone an anonymous "I am over 18" validation method that isn't connected to other ID aspects (name, address, etc).
One thing is scope. There's tons of limits on what the government can ask for, or how they can store it. In context of the 2nd, it's been found unconstitutional to build a database of gun owners, even though each individual store is required to store data on their customers.
I'd argue it's kind of the same for porn and the 1st: You can say 'you're not allowed to view this unless you're eighteen,' but it's gets much more intrusive and dangerous if you're required to provide ID. So some things could be found constitutional, but pushing it too far could in theory be unconstitutional, at least according to the courts. I'd argue we already have a shit ton of unconstitutional laws that are deemed just fine, but that's a different conversation.
There is nothing stopping the government from building that porn user database the same way how the ATF is not supposed to use 4473 forms to build a database, but they did it anyway.
Sure there is, since you can currently mostly-anonymously access porn. If they put ID laws in place that would change. And we certainly shouldn't make it easier and set precedent in such a direction, just because they could currently use workarounds to achieve the same end.
VPNs are probably funded by / run by the govt.