I view a lot of porn, so I have things to say. Before I comment, however, I need some clarification: What does the term "age verification" used in the article mean? Does it mean what we already have on the internet, which is that the visitor to a porn site must click on a button confirming he/she is over age 18, or are we talking about something more invasive, like the government (or even the web site on behalf of the government) requiring that visitors email personal ID to them?
I have another question too. Is there really a movement afoot to limit porn on the internet, or is this just an theoretical discussion?
Now, I'm not a Supreme Court scholar, but I've been around for awhile (I'm 76). I've noticed that conservative SC jurists tend to view some rights as more absolute than others. Two examples (and there are more I can't remember now) include the right to own a gun and the right to free speech. Indeed, I recall a SC decision in which they legalized child pornography which was made with animations instead of real kids. I remember a case in which a state tried to ban porn which showed naked women in high heels stepping on and crushing small animals such as chicks and kittens -- the SC ruled in favor of the pornographers and against the state. (Both decisions are fairly old now, but were handed down when the Court's move to the Right had already started.)
So, given this tendency which the SC now has to favor any and all speech, is this a real-world debate we are having? Or is this debate merely theoretical? I thought the issue had been decided. Certainly, with the SC obsessed with free speech, as it seems to be, any law passed in a state could easily be struck down.
I followed the links and couldn't find the text of the bill, but I did see the trans woman representative, and it is a measure of how little respect I have for trans people that I don't like them even when they are saying reasonable things. A man with a man's voice, wearing a wig, will always look like a phony and a pretender to me.
(I'm going to bed soon. I'll be back later to respond to comments.)
I actually agree with trans identified guy. I think his point is valid. And this part is my concern:
“(g) "Material harmful to minors" means a text, sound recording, image, video, or similar representation or depiction that: new text end
new text begin (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards and evaluating the material (i) as a whole, and (ii) with respect to minors, would determine is designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest;”
I’ve known way to many people in my life that believe the mention of homosexuality isn’t appropriate for kids. This is to vague. This could definitely be used to restrict everything that might refer to homosexuality. There are people who think teaching sex ed is not appropriate for kids.
I think the language needs to be specifically pionted at porn sites.
Porn sites aren't where child brides are being raped. Stop thinking in the terms you're told to, and start looking where they don't want you to. Where are Vulnerable People at their Most Vulnerable. Where are the Voices of tolhose people?
As a child I was groomed using simple disgusting household shit. My uncle had a set of favorite glasses, the bathing suit used to fall off the girl. He had a fav set of playing cards - same garbage. He trafficked me to his friends and buddies, they were All skilled at sticking fungers in places "oil checks" whenever their ugly hands or bodies were near me. The items he owned were considered "entertainment" and when I protested, fought back, complained, cried, begged, stole hygiene products to deal with bleeding, peed my bed bc I was so afraid he'd put his or someone else's hands on me if I left the bedrooms, that I would rather everyone be angry at me than try for the potty alone, and he was the one who was making "community" with ppl. He was "normal / a great guy / someone who was a community pillar" 🙄 No Porn Sites Required.
Do you know what Was lacking? Words. I had no words for my body parts Other than the ones he gave me, and he made sure that playtime's included training animals, and using toys, all of whom had the same names as slang terms for body parts I had no words for. Predatory people in Patriarchal Societies and Cultures and Nations don't need laws, those who are Victim-Survivors need Safety, Words, Free Access, Education, Safe Collection Kits, and spaces that AREN’T Patriarchal, and ARE off limits to those who are. This is what politicians Don't want ppl looking at, or changing. If we give their power to Victim-Survivors, if e give education to families WITH children AS Communities and not as isolated child body in isolating individualized containers, then we restore, and heal.
Ask Victim-Survivors what they needed. Ask what they got. Ask what helped. Ask what didn't. TALK TO SURVIVORS.
I get your concern, but the text of the bill seems more specific than that? Copying from the text:
—-
(g) "Material harmful to minors" means a text, sound recording, image, video, or similar representation or depiction that:
(1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards and evaluating the material (i) as a whole, and (ii) with respect to minors, would determine is designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest; (2) in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, exploits, is devoted to, or principally consists of a representation or description of an actual, simulated, or animated display or depiction of an intimate part, sexual contact, sexual penetration, bestiality, sadomasochistic abuse, excretory function, exhibition, or other sexual act; and (3) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
The problem lays with “the average person “ part. What does the average person think is inappropriate sexual content? A few years ago on Twitter I saw a bunch of people loosing their minds over a book geared towards children that explained bodies and sex. They found it pornographic and not suitable for kids. They said that any parent who would give that to their kid should be looked into because they are creeps. That book just so happened to be on our son’s book shelf. Me and my wife had reviewed the book and found it educational and appropriate for him to learn about how babies are made and how bodies work.
If a whole lot of folks are up in arms over a sex Ed book for kids I don’t trust for one second that the average person knows the difference between porn and sex education. And I’ve seen a number of gender critical folks take issue with books that talk about same sex relationships and the depiction of those relationships in kids books and tv. I know you’ve seen it too.
I should also add that the scope of the bill is specifically about age verification for online porn. we already require showing ids for in person porn purchases, and I haven’t heard outcry over that. Is that legislation worded differently? (Not a rhetorical question, I am curious.) I guess I just cannot help but be cynical that this opposition (not by you, but the likes of Finke) has some nefarious reasons for their objections. Lots of agp men “come out trans” due to porn.
Oh I don’t doubt he is a creep. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. It’s why I looked up the information myself.
I’m not against ID verification, by issue is with the ambiguity of the what is considered porn. It leaves it up to individual interpretation. I can easily see a maga republican doing a lot of damage with it. Like with anything, you must ask yourself, what will this do in the most extreme hands?
Would you be more comfortable if they scrubbed that whole part about the “average person” (section 1), and just included the description of the content (sections 2 and 3)?
Yes, the bill need to be specifically written to only be talking about porn sites. I would like nothing more than to have restrictions that cover all things that kids should see but that’s impossible. It really comes down to the parents own responsibility. I say this as a parent of a 16 year old who doesn’t have a phone or tablet of his own and can only watch tv in the living room, and isn’t allowed on YouTube. I’m all for porn sites being regulated. But the scope has to be narrow.
I don’t support porn. I agree that Lesbian porn is ultimately designed to titilate men. But I do think it needs to be clearly defined or it could indeed be misused against any lesbian or gay content or against sex education that discusses homosexuality.
A century ago, a lesbian and Left wing activist named Eve Adams was prosecuted under obscenity laws for writing a little chapbook called “Lesbian Live” containing sweet lesbian love stories. She was imprisoned, then deported, and eventually was murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust. Though that was more than 100 years ago, religious fundamentalists still define any reference to same sex love and sexuality as pornographic or obscene.
And yes, gays and lesbians need to fear such overly broad restrictions more than heterosexuals, because the whole world supports, teaches about and promotes heterosexuality. Teen lesbians and gays often don’t have such options.
I view a lot of porn, so I have things to say. Before I comment, however, I need some clarification: What does the term "age verification" used in the article mean? Does it mean what we already have on the internet, which is that the visitor to a porn site must click on a button confirming he/she is over age 18, or are we talking about something more invasive, like the government (or even the web site on behalf of the government) requiring that visitors email personal ID to them?
I have another question too. Is there really a movement afoot to limit porn on the internet, or is this just an theoretical discussion?
Now, I'm not a Supreme Court scholar, but I've been around for awhile (I'm 76). I've noticed that conservative SC jurists tend to view some rights as more absolute than others. Two examples (and there are more I can't remember now) include the right to own a gun and the right to free speech. Indeed, I recall a SC decision in which they legalized child pornography which was made with animations instead of real kids. I remember a case in which a state tried to ban porn which showed naked women in high heels stepping on and crushing small animals such as chicks and kittens -- the SC ruled in favor of the pornographers and against the state. (Both decisions are fairly old now, but were handed down when the Court's move to the Right had already started.)
So, given this tendency which the SC now has to favor any and all speech, is this a real-world debate we are having? Or is this debate merely theoretical? I thought the issue had been decided. Certainly, with the SC obsessed with free speech, as it seems to be, any law passed in a state could easily be struck down.
I followed the links and couldn't find the text of the bill, but I did see the trans woman representative, and it is a measure of how little respect I have for trans people that I don't like them even when they are saying reasonable things. A man with a man's voice, wearing a wig, will always look like a phony and a pretender to me.
(I'm going to bed soon. I'll be back later to respond to comments.)
I actually agree with trans identified guy. I think his point is valid. And this part is my concern:
“(g) "Material harmful to minors" means a text, sound recording, image, video, or similar representation or depiction that: new text end
new text begin (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards and evaluating the material (i) as a whole, and (ii) with respect to minors, would determine is designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest;”
I’ve known way to many people in my life that believe the mention of homosexuality isn’t appropriate for kids. This is to vague. This could definitely be used to restrict everything that might refer to homosexuality. There are people who think teaching sex ed is not appropriate for kids.
I think the language needs to be specifically pionted at porn sites.
Porn sites aren't where child brides are being raped. Stop thinking in the terms you're told to, and start looking where they don't want you to. Where are Vulnerable People at their Most Vulnerable. Where are the Voices of tolhose people?
As a child I was groomed using simple disgusting household shit. My uncle had a set of favorite glasses, the bathing suit used to fall off the girl. He had a fav set of playing cards - same garbage. He trafficked me to his friends and buddies, they were All skilled at sticking fungers in places "oil checks" whenever their ugly hands or bodies were near me. The items he owned were considered "entertainment" and when I protested, fought back, complained, cried, begged, stole hygiene products to deal with bleeding, peed my bed bc I was so afraid he'd put his or someone else's hands on me if I left the bedrooms, that I would rather everyone be angry at me than try for the potty alone, and he was the one who was making "community" with ppl. He was "normal / a great guy / someone who was a community pillar" 🙄 No Porn Sites Required.
Do you know what Was lacking? Words. I had no words for my body parts Other than the ones he gave me, and he made sure that playtime's included training animals, and using toys, all of whom had the same names as slang terms for body parts I had no words for. Predatory people in Patriarchal Societies and Cultures and Nations don't need laws, those who are Victim-Survivors need Safety, Words, Free Access, Education, Safe Collection Kits, and spaces that AREN’T Patriarchal, and ARE off limits to those who are. This is what politicians Don't want ppl looking at, or changing. If we give their power to Victim-Survivors, if e give education to families WITH children AS Communities and not as isolated child body in isolating individualized containers, then we restore, and heal.
Ask Victim-Survivors what they needed. Ask what they got. Ask what helped. Ask what didn't. TALK TO SURVIVORS.
I get your concern, but the text of the bill seems more specific than that? Copying from the text:
—-
(g) "Material harmful to minors" means a text, sound recording, image, video, or similar representation or depiction that:
(1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards and evaluating the material (i) as a whole, and (ii) with respect to minors, would determine is designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest; (2) in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, exploits, is devoted to, or principally consists of a representation or description of an actual, simulated, or animated display or depiction of an intimate part, sexual contact, sexual penetration, bestiality, sadomasochistic abuse, excretory function, exhibition, or other sexual act; and (3) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
The problem lays with “the average person “ part. What does the average person think is inappropriate sexual content? A few years ago on Twitter I saw a bunch of people loosing their minds over a book geared towards children that explained bodies and sex. They found it pornographic and not suitable for kids. They said that any parent who would give that to their kid should be looked into because they are creeps. That book just so happened to be on our son’s book shelf. Me and my wife had reviewed the book and found it educational and appropriate for him to learn about how babies are made and how bodies work.
If a whole lot of folks are up in arms over a sex Ed book for kids I don’t trust for one second that the average person knows the difference between porn and sex education. And I’ve seen a number of gender critical folks take issue with books that talk about same sex relationships and the depiction of those relationships in kids books and tv. I know you’ve seen it too.
I should also add that the scope of the bill is specifically about age verification for online porn. we already require showing ids for in person porn purchases, and I haven’t heard outcry over that. Is that legislation worded differently? (Not a rhetorical question, I am curious.) I guess I just cannot help but be cynical that this opposition (not by you, but the likes of Finke) has some nefarious reasons for their objections. Lots of agp men “come out trans” due to porn.
Oh I don’t doubt he is a creep. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. It’s why I looked up the information myself.
I’m not against ID verification, by issue is with the ambiguity of the what is considered porn. It leaves it up to individual interpretation. I can easily see a maga republican doing a lot of damage with it. Like with anything, you must ask yourself, what will this do in the most extreme hands?
Would you be more comfortable if they scrubbed that whole part about the “average person” (section 1), and just included the description of the content (sections 2 and 3)?
Yes, the bill need to be specifically written to only be talking about porn sites. I would like nothing more than to have restrictions that cover all things that kids should see but that’s impossible. It really comes down to the parents own responsibility. I say this as a parent of a 16 year old who doesn’t have a phone or tablet of his own and can only watch tv in the living room, and isn’t allowed on YouTube. I’m all for porn sites being regulated. But the scope has to be narrow.
I’m curious on how rules regulating physical porn are written, and whether they have similiar stipulations about the “average person.”
I don’t support porn. I agree that Lesbian porn is ultimately designed to titilate men. But I do think it needs to be clearly defined or it could indeed be misused against any lesbian or gay content or against sex education that discusses homosexuality.
A century ago, a lesbian and Left wing activist named Eve Adams was prosecuted under obscenity laws for writing a little chapbook called “Lesbian Live” containing sweet lesbian love stories. She was imprisoned, then deported, and eventually was murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust. Though that was more than 100 years ago, religious fundamentalists still define any reference to same sex love and sexuality as pornographic or obscene.
And yes, gays and lesbians need to fear such overly broad restrictions more than heterosexuals, because the whole world supports, teaches about and promotes heterosexuality. Teen lesbians and gays often don’t have such options.
See my response to Carol. The wording of the bill seems fairly precise, and would be hard to interpret to include innocuous content.
The trans cult is depraved.