Supreme Court rules in favor of anti-porn law

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

And the VPN companies cheered.

I think that by going after the websites to "ensure" their viewers are 18+ a VPN wouldn't be immediately helpful. What it does mean (going on a previous case of attempted federal over-reach) is that your studio in the North-East of the US will produce it's material as before, sell the distribution rights to a shell company registered somewhere not as puritanical, who then distribute it just as before.

Certain people in the US do clearly believe that US law is the law everywhere.

 

[Jamdoc]

The key distinction is the way and "transport mechanism" by which the age would be verified.
(both in terms of the data security, and privacy)

When I hand my drivers license to a clerk at the grocery store to buy some beer and they take a quick glance at it, it's highly unlikely that that my data and an image of my driver's license is going to be intercepted and end up in a data dump somewhere.

If someone were to purchase that kind of content at a brick and mortar store, it's highly unlikely that the clerk would be snagging a copy of everyone's information in a way that has the propensity for a massive leak and subsequent "Hey, look up your neighbors on the 'here's who's been watching dirty videos, and what kind they've been watching' published leak"


We live in an era where the propensity is high for both stealing peoples' private details, as well as people getting their hands on "dirt" that they can use to damage someone personally/politically/professionally.


In threads where this has been discussed before, I've noted that while I understand the issue they're trying to solve (which is making sure minors can't access that material...and it's a noble cause), good policy needs to have a reasonable benefit to risk trade off.

Meaning, if a policy in question is going to subject a person to some level of personal risk, then the policy needs to be able to demonstrate that it's actually effective enough to address the thing it's claiming to address. Otherwise you've just subjected people to risk for nothing.

Given that 80% of those types of websites are hosted and operated outside of the US (meaning they're not subject to our laws), that's a practical limitation of this proposed legislation.


In reality, and nobody is going to like this answer, this an issue where the cat's out of the bag and we can't unring the bell.

The internet has become ubiquitous, those types of sites make up a huge portion of the internet, there's already been a plethora of tools developed that specifically circumnavigate the monitoring and restrictions people are seeking to enforce, and most parents have already purchased an internet-capable device that their kids have in their pockets and can access when the parents are not around.

These are questions that should've been asked in the 1990's, not in 2025.

It'd be like asking:
"Hey, we already put a package of cookies in our kid's backpack and sent them out to go play with their friends two hours ago -- and gave them $5 that they could technically use to purchase another package to replace it so it wouldn't look like any where missing if they were sneaky enough...how do we 100% ensure they're not going to eat cookies before they come back for dinner?"

Answer: "Sorry, you don't"

Honestly the best method of preventing browsing internet porn by minors is to not allow them to have a device they can use to access it when you can't be monitoring what they're accessing.
That means no smartphones, no tablets, no laptops, no desktops, if they need one for school it has to be in the main living room where it's visible to see by others at all times, and you physically remove something needed to have the computer even run when you're not home, like the RAM DIMMS.. oh and no video game consoles made in the last 20 years as those also have web browser modes built into them, if you have a console it needs to be in the main livingroom as well.

Yeah you kind of have to create a panopticon/surveillance state for your kids and they probably won't like it.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I think that by going after the websites to "ensure" their viewers are 18+ a VPN wouldn't be immediately helpful.

How exactly is a website going to ensure a user is 18+?

 

[BCP1928]

I think that by going after the websites to "ensure" their viewers are 18+ a VPN wouldn't be immediately helpful. What it does mean (going on a previous case of attempted federal over-reach) is that your studio in the North-East of the US will produce it's material as before, sell the distribution rights to a shell company registered somewhere not as puritanical, who then distribute it just as before.

Certain people in the US do clearly believe that US law is the law everywhere.

One of the biggest reasons younger kids start looking at porn is just to find out about sex. Their curiosity would be better satisfied by comprehensive sex ed. It would certainly be better for them than finding out about it by looking at raunchy porn sites designed primarily for kinky adults. But we can't have comprehensive sex ed, that would "sexualize" children.

 

[Jamdoc]

I think that by going after the websites to "ensure" their viewers are 18+ a VPN wouldn't be immediately helpful. What it does mean (going on a previous case of attempted federal over-reach) is that your studio in the North-East of the US will produce it's material as before, sell the distribution rights to a shell company registered somewhere not as puritanical, who then distribute it just as before.

Certain people in the US do clearly believe that US law is the law everywhere.

no right now how porn sites are dealing with the laws is blocking access from IP's in states that have these laws. To get around it, people just use a VPN that is hosted in a state without these laws.

 

[Jamdoc]

One of the biggest reasons younger kids start looking at porn is just to find out about sex. Their curiosity would be better satisfied by comprehensive sex ed. It would certainly be better for them than finding out about it by looking at raunchy porn sites designed primarily for kinky adults. But we can't have comprehensive sex ed, that would "sexualize" children.

Even with sex ed kids would look at porn, why?

Because adults tell them not to. But adults enjoy doing it and they're not stupid, they know it's highly desirable because the concept is all over media of every format. Romantic love and sex is the main theme of most secular songs, tv shows, movies, books, magazines, you name it. If it's all over culture then it must be good, but all the adults say they can't have it, so they feel like they're missing out on something great.

In the garden God said don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Well, God has knowledge of good and evil, and we don't, so it must be something good we're missing out on.

 

[BCP1928]

Even with sex ed kids would look at porn, why?

Because adults tell them not to. But adults enjoy doing it and they're not stupid, they know it's highly desirable because the concept is all over media of every format. Romantic love and sex is the main theme of most secular songs, tv shows, movies, books, magazines, you name it. If it's all over culture then it must be good, but all the adults say they can't have it, so they feel like they're missing out on something great.

In the garden God said don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Well, God has knowledge of good and evil, and we don't, so it must be something good we're missing out on.

Here is an interesting article about sex ed:

Bertrand Russell: Sex Education - Scraps from the loft

The subject of sex is so surrounded by superstitions and taboos that I approach it with trepidation. I fear lest those readers who have hitherto accepted my principles may suspect them when they are applied in this sphere; they may have admitted readily enough that fearlessness and freedom are...

scrapsfromtheloft.com

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

How exactly is a website going to ensure a user is 18+?

If it's charging then via the card details, if not? Maybe just asking them?

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

no right now how porn sites are dealing with the laws is blocking access from IP's in states that have these laws. To get around it, people just use a VPN that is hosted in a state without these laws.

Or, if I remember rightly, pre-emptively blocking IP addresses from states that were considering it (normally with a message explaining why they were doing it and a suggestion that they refer the matter to their elected representitive.

I see your point though.

 

[Jamdoc]

Here is an interesting article about sex ed:

Bertrand Russell: Sex Education - Scraps from the loft

The subject of sex is so surrounded by superstitions and taboos that I approach it with trepidation. I fear lest those readers who have hitherto accepted my principles may suspect them when they are applied in this sphere; they may have admitted readily enough that fearlessness and freedom are...

scrapsfromtheloft.com

okay I get the gist (though the author has a really weird way of wording things that makes me think the article was written in the 19th century), but simply explaining sex in the driest of ways is not going to dispel the allure it has unless you keep them locked in a basement with no access to outside culture that glorifies it.
and frankly, portraying it as something that people do, but they can't do it, always keeps that mystery/allure to it.

Innocence is just something that is not valued until it's lost.

Try to convince someone that staying a virgin forever is the most desirable state of a human being.

and actually I just realized why innocence has value once it's lost - because you can't get it back.
goes right back to the things we desire - the things we're unable to have.

 

[seeking.IAM]

How exactly is a website going to ensure a user is 18+?

If it's charging then via the card details, if not? Maybe just asking them?

Yeah, because everyone knows 14-year-olds wouldn't lie about something as important as that or slip Daddy's credit card from his wallet while he is sleeping. And, lucky that no one has ever tried using a fake ID before. Won't happen. I guess tender teenage minds are safe, now.

 

[zippy2006]

Right, but that's not why the subject was brought up.

I think you guys just need to get out your dictionaries and look up the word "correlated."

 

[zippy2006]

We live in an era where the propensity is high for both stealing peoples' private details, as well as people getting their hands on "dirt" that they can use to damage someone personally/politically/professionally.

And that's why my grandma won't use her credit card online. Do you ever use a credit card online? Because the parallel answer here is, "Oh, you don't need to buy things online" ("Oh, we don't need to worry about 8 year-old kids accessing pornography.")

But what is the case about? The case is about whether age verification is unconstitutional according to the first amendment. The Supreme Court said 'no'. What do you say? Presumably you are saying, "No, it's not unconstitutional. I agree with the Court. But I don't agree with the legislation."

These are questions that should've been asked in the 1990's, not in 2025.

We aren't forward thinking when it comes to technology, but this isn't really an argument. It's like replying to someone promoting nuclear disarmament, "These are questions that should've been asked in the 1960's, not in 2025." Their reply would be, "True, but we didn't address the problem then so we have to address it now."

 

[zippy2006]

I did this back in the day. I paid for expensive blocking software only to check browsing history and discover sites listed for which I had blocked access. My kid looked at me and laughed, "Dad we got around that in 3 days."

Adults who are not smarter than their kids have trouble parenting, period. This is just a general rule. In my opinion this is a problem with adults who are naive about their children's ability to access content. There was an time when such naivete was understandable, but that time is gone.

 

[zippy2006]

They are, because kids who've wanted to find porn, have always been able to find it. In the 90's when internet porn was first starting it was all paid sites, the "age verification" was having a credit card in order to pay for a subscription to the site., but teens found ways around that, hacked passwords, stolen credit cards, and various other sources like IRC, newsgroups, and filesharing clients originally touted for music sharing (generally music pirating) like limewire, and eventually torrents where you could download entire paid siterips.

The strawman here is, "If the law isn't going to snuff out the crime with 100% success, then the law is pointless." On your reasoning we just shouldn't have any laws at all, since some people will always get around them. These are not serious arguments.

 

[zippy2006]

It's better than nothing.

Indeed.

To say, "This isn't a perfect solution," is true, but no one was claiming that it is a perfect solution.

The prudential counter-arguments being offered amount to, "Porn isn't that bad, so we shouldn't do these things to combat it." My response would be, "So are you admitting that if porn was worse then we should do these things to combat it?" It is not intellectually honest to give an argument that places porn on one side of the scale and remedies on the other side of the scale, and then take absolutist positions. If someone is taking absolutist positions, then their "scale" is a fiction. In that case their absolutist argument is something like:

• We shouldn't do anything that is hard to do
• Legislating against child-consumed pornography is hard to do
• Therefore we shouldn't legislate against child-consumed pornography

 

[Jamdoc]

The strawman here is, "If the law isn't going to snuff out the crime with 100% success, then the law is pointless." On your reasoning we just shouldn't have any laws at all, since some people will always get around them. These are not serious arguments.

as Rob pointed out the problem is effectiveness of the law vs risks of applying the law.

Here we have an ineffective law that carries huge identity theft risks.

 

[zippy2006]

I think that by going after the websites to "ensure" their viewers are 18+ a VPN wouldn't be immediately helpful.

Agreed.

Certain people in the US do clearly believe that US law is the law everywhere.

The internet is not free from governmental legislation. Generally speaking, serving users of a jurisdiction makes one subject to the laws of that jurisdiction. There is good precedent for this, especially among Western countries.

 

[zippy2006]

Here we have an ineffective law that carries huge identity theft risks.

You would apparently claim that Mexico just shouldn't even legislate against drug trafficking, because it will be "ineffective." How many lives would have to be saved before such a law becomes "effective"?

Again:

Websites which handle sensitive information, such as credit cards, are required by law to abide by certain security standards.

If we followed the reasoning of you or @ThatRobGuy, online credit card use would never exist. "It carries huge identity theft risks, therefore we can't do it. Full stop. There's absolutely no way that we could make online credit card transactions secure. Completely impossible! Don't even try!"

"...I guess the omnipotent guy on the internet is insistent that credit cards can never be made secure online. We'd better not even try. There is no possible outcome that could ever be worth the effort." ( )

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I think you guys just need to get out your dictionaries and look up the word "correlated."

Perhaps you do.