I've said before, I think selective internet bans are a very slippery slope. No matter how you feel about porn, I think stopping this ID law is overall good for internet freedom. I don't like porn, and I think it can be monumentally harmful. I think the government being able to set requirements to visit websites is more harmful.
I also think it's kind of ironic everyone (rightly) rails against internet ID, and idiots who push that nonsense, but often have no problem with porn restrictions.
It's a parent's job to stop kids from watching porn, not the government's. And the government will almost never make the situation better, no matter how negligent the parent. We know this shit. We see it time and time again. Not sure why people are so keen on porn ID laws. In any other context, they go against everything most of us here believe in.
AFAIK, you can buy guns/ammo/etc online in the US- right?
If so, they require ID/background checks more intense than what porn sites would require. Yet I don't know of any 2A backlash on that.
There are issues/concerns with ID but they have those already on online alcohol/gun sales, I don't see a constitutional argument against online porn ID when IRL sex shops require it, as does the 7/11 when you buy a Playboy.
Potential black mail material. Also you never know what such information can do. The Dutch government stored religious affiliation on personal records before ww2. That info was used by the Nazi's to locate their victims. You don't know who will own stored information at some point.
That's an argument that the there could be flaws in the ID collection, not that age verification is unconstitutional- if that's true it would be unconstitutional for the sex shop to verify age.
I've said before, I think selective internet bans are a very slippery slope. No matter how you feel about porn, I think stopping this ID law is overall good for internet freedom. I don't like porn, and I think it can be monumentally harmful. I think the government being able to set requirements to visit websites is more harmful.
I also think it's kind of ironic everyone (rightly) rails against internet ID, and idiots who push that nonsense, but often have no problem with porn restrictions.
It's a parent's job to stop kids from watching porn, not the government's. And the government will almost never make the situation better, no matter how negligent the parent. We know this shit. We see it time and time again. Not sure why people are so keen on porn ID laws. In any other context, they go against everything most of us here believe in.
AFAIK, you can buy guns/ammo/etc online in the US- right?
If so, they require ID/background checks more intense than what porn sites would require. Yet I don't know of any 2A backlash on that.
There are issues/concerns with ID but they have those already on online alcohol/gun sales, I don't see a constitutional argument against online porn ID when IRL sex shops require it, as does the 7/11 when you buy a Playboy.
Potential black mail material. Also you never know what such information can do. The Dutch government stored religious affiliation on personal records before ww2. That info was used by the Nazi's to locate their victims. You don't know who will own stored information at some point.
That's an argument that the there could be flaws in the ID collection, not that age verification is unconstitutional- if that's true it would be unconstitutional for the sex shop to verify age.
Porn sites already get your credit card info.