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.
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).
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
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).