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.
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
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.