Supreme Court rules in favor of anti-porn law

[Jamdoc]

Except guns kill people and viewing porn does not. Yet somehow limiting access to porn to “keep kids safe” is applauded, but limiting access to guns to keep kids safe is an unreasonable and offensive thing to ask.

The morality police’s double standards are fun.

Guns are more limited to access than pornography even under these laws.
You have to prove age to buy those too, and have a background check.

 

[Zceptre]

Now that is the real statement from ignorance and bias, lol. Viewing porn does not kill people, and even if it did (which it does not), it’s not to the tune of 46,728 per year. That is a ludicrous thing to claim.

You know nothing of the pornography industry or the human trafficking involved then.

Living outside of the human trafficking world are millions of deluded people who think the industry of sexual entertainment is completely free of blood on their hands. They would be wrong.

You believe anything you want, but anyone who isn't living under a rock and who doesn't drink the run of the mill mainstream narrative knows there are greater evils in the world that exist below the surface than anyone would like to admit. (even if they haven't traversed such dark worlds)

You denying that the sexual industry has any blood on it's hands isn't going to wash the blood away in reality.

It only makes you feel comfortable in your own skin or helps you sleep to think that while you defend it.

Alas, I've said enough. You've stated your opinion. People can dig up information if they want the truth, as it is able to be found when people seek the truth on the subject. I have no burden to prove anything here if someone wants to believe things to help them sleep better.

 

[Desk trauma]

You know nothing of the pornography industry or the human trafficking involved then.

Living outside of the human trafficking world are millions of deluded people who think the industry of sexual entertainment is completely free of blood on their hands. They would be wrong.

You believe anything you want, but anyone who isn't living under a rock and who doesn't drink the run of the mill mainstream narrative knows there are greater evils in the world that exist below the surface than anyone would like to admit. (even if they haven't traversed such dark worlds)

You denying that the sexual industry has any blood on it's hands isn't going to wash the blood away in reality.

It only makes you feel comfortable in your own skin or helps you sleep to think that while you defend it.

Alas, I've said enough. You've stated your opinion. People can dig up information if they want the truth, as it is able to be found when people seek the truth on the subject. I have no burden to prove anything here if someone wants to believe things to help them sleep better.

All of that will of course be improved by further stigmatizing sex work and removing legal avenues for it. Nothing improves working conditions like giving an industry to organized crime.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Guns are more limited to access than pornography even under these laws.
You have to prove age to buy those too, and have a background check.

“For $30 and a few clicks, any child can have a box of 20 rounds of .223 rifle ammunition delivered to their doorstep within days.

That’s what Everytown for Gun Safety found when it sent people undercover recently to test federal laws prohibiting ammo sales to minors by ordering rifle rounds from seven top e-commerce retailers.

Age verification amounted to checkboxes and requirements buried in the sites’ terms of service. None required purchasers to upload an identification or have an adult sign for delivery.

Everytown surveyed well-known sites such as Brownells and Guns.com as well as bulk ammo warehouses with more opaque ownership, such as Florida-based BHAmmo.com.

Under federal law, you have to be 18 to buy rifle and shotgun ammunition and 21 for handgun ammo. But the law doesn’t prescribe how sellers must verify age; it holds them in violation of the statute only if they “know or have reasonable cause to believe the purchaser of the ammunition is a juvenile.” Underage buyers would not technically be breaking the law until they receive the ammo.”

Age verification to buy alcohol, but not rifle ammo? How kids can get access in a few clicks

A new undercover action by Everytown for Gun Safety exposed a lack of age verification on popular ammo retailers online.

www.usatoday.com

Ironically, states that require in-person or age verification on websites selling ammo to residence were taken to court for the legislation, calling it unfair and discriminatory.

So, you’re excited about a verification step for porn that was deemed unfair for gun and ammo access.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

You know nothing of the pornography industry or the human trafficking involved then.

Living outside of the human trafficking world are millions of deluded people who think the industry of sexual entertainment is completely free of blood on their hands. They would be wrong.

You believe anything you want, but anyone who isn't living under a rock and who doesn't drink the run of the mill mainstream narrative knows there are greater evils in the world that exist below the surface than anyone would like to admit. (even if they haven't traversed such dark worlds)

You denying that the sexual industry has any blood on it's hands isn't going to wash the blood away in reality.

It only makes you feel comfortable in your own skin or helps you sleep to think that while you defend it.

Alas, I've said enough. You've stated your opinion. People can dig up information if they want the truth, as it is able to be found when people seek the truth on the subject. I have no burden to prove anything here if someone wants to believe things to help them sleep better.

I’m not seeing anywhere how that translates to people who view porn are dying because of their viewing.

And I dare say I know way more about the sex and porn industry than you do.

Human trafficking occurs in all industries, it’s all horrific, and it’s up to the employers to regulate it and prevent it, the government to create the regulations that force those who won’t self-regulate their practices, and the consumer to choose purveyors who adhere to ethical employment practices.

But to bleat about human trafficking and poor working conditions of porn stars while wearing clothes likely made by trafficked persons, while typing on a phone or computer likely made by underpaid persons and/or those forced into the job, while making plans to eat food likely harvested by people being exploited, but being ok with all that… It just reeks of hypocrisy. You still buy your fruit, your phone, your made in Asia clothes and products without stress because you like those items, think you need them, and would not like the inconvenience of not having them.

But because you have hang ups about sex and/or the sex industry, the exploitation there is suddenly an overriding issue where using the product makes people culpable for what goes on in the illicit side of the industry, regardless of if they access the seedy purveyors or the legitimate ones. Its nonsense. It’s one’s personal, illogical hangups or personal morality on sex tied up with false altruism and virtue signaling.

 

[Zceptre]

And I dare say I know way more about the sex and porn industry than you do.

You know nothing about me whatsoever.

I have no idea where you got any such notion you did to make that assessment.

Calling me a hypocrite was also a bit out of place. Unnecessary and very telling.

I wish you well on your journey in life.

I don't communicate with this kind of negativity.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is just a bad argument. You aren't even providing data on how much traffic was impeded, which is precisely what the law intended. You've also just ignored all of my other objections to your other bad arguments.

Note that the fact that VPN use increased actually demonstrates that the law is working. If the law were not working then people would not need a VPN. Thus the law disincentivized the illegal activity by increasing the cost associated with it, and some people (we have no idea how many, given your numbers) chose to accept that increased cost for the sake of the activity.

Legislation is always a turn-based game. VPN use obviously needs to be addressed as well, where VPN companies should not assist minors in accessing illegal content.

The increase in VPN traffic doesn't demonstrate the law is working, it demonstrates that people are still looking at the kinds of things you were trying to stop them from looking at, just merely getting it from a different source or circumnavigating the intent of the law.


That'd be like saying "We saw huge number of people drinking bud light, so we're going to put this barrier in place that makes it much more difficult to access bud light"

And then upon seeing that they all merely switched to Coors light but are still consuming beer at the same rates, saying "See it worked, they're not drinking as much bud light"


There is no way to "address the VPN use" nor is there any practical way to "address getting the content from a Euro site instead of an American one".


Iran, Russia, China, Turkey, and Egypt have all tried to "address the VPN usage". Despite having some of the tightest controls on internet traffic in the world, they failed.

- VPN tech evolves faster than government censorship mechanisms
- Tor bridges used as a stand-alone (or in conjunction with a VPN) make it nearly indecipherable
- VPN providers in other countries operate outside the jurisdiction of the censoring government (The US can't for a Czech provider to do anything, for the same reason Iran can't force a US vpn provider to do anything)

 

[Desk trauma]

The increase in VPN traffic doesn't demonstrate the law is working, it demonstrates that people are still looking at the kinds of things you were trying to stop them from looking at, just merely getting it from a different source or circumnavigating the intent of the law.


That'd be like saying "We saw huge number of people drinking bud light, so we're going to put this barrier in place that makes it much more difficult to access bud light"

And then upon seeing that they all merely switched to Coors light but are still consuming beer at the same rates, saying "See it worked, they're not drinking as much bud light"

It’s not even that much of a change in behavior, At most it’s like people sliding their bud into a brown paper bag to circumvent open container laws.

 

[BCP1928]

You know nothing of the pornography industry or the human trafficking involved then.

Living outside of the human trafficking world are millions of deluded people who think the industry of sexual entertainment is completely free of blood on their hands. They would be wrong.

You believe anything you want, but anyone who isn't living under a rock and who doesn't drink the run of the mill mainstream narrative knows there are greater evils in the world that exist below the surface than anyone would like to admit. (even if they haven't traversed such dark worlds)

You denying that the sexual industry has any blood on it's hands isn't going to wash the blood away in reality.

It only makes you feel comfortable in your own skin or helps you sleep to think that while you defend it.

Alas, I've said enough. You've stated your opinion. People can dig up information if they want the truth, as it is able to be found when people seek the truth on the subject. I have no burden to prove anything here if someone wants to believe things to help them sleep better.

The trouble with this bill is that it doesn't limit access to porn, except those sites which go along with it.

 

[Zceptre]

The trouble with this bill is that it doesn't limit access to porn, except those sites which go along with it.

lol

Hold on, I'll put on my "extremely shocked" face...

 

[Tropical Wilds]

You know nothing about me whatsoever.

Ditto, kiddo.

The fact is I do likely know more about it, you just don’t want to entertain that may be the case and would rather you think you’re the authority on the subject. There’s no reason to pretend that I know less than I do so as to protect your ego.

I have no idea where you got any such notion you did to make that assessment.

Your repeating of the boogeyman sex industry platitudes and stigmas about sex workers without acknowledging that, especially today, the sex industry is made up of people who choose to be there. They consent, are willing, and do so as safely as possible. Pretending they isn’t true doesn’t win your argument any points.

Calling me a hypocrite was also a bit out of place. Unnecessary and very telling.

So you don’t like that I pointed out the likelihood you benefit from trafficking and exploitation, but that doesn’t mean I’m incorrect, nor do you say so… Probably because (if you admit it or not), you know that I’m right, and you are on your foreign-made device wearing your foreign-made clothes eating your breakfast that uses foreign-harvested components, brought to you by indentured, marginalized, exploited, often child-aged, workers.

I wish you well on your journey in life.

I don't communicate with this kind of negativity.

No, you don’t communicate with people who can articulate a counter argument and point out the errors in your logic and you don’t like your viewpoint being challenged. Not quite the same thing.

 

[BCP1928]

lol

Hold on, I'll put on my "extremely shocked" face...

And it can be shown, in fact it's obvious, that the porn most likely to involve things like underage or obviously drugged participants, violence or animals, things like that, are the porn sites which won't be banned. Go ahead and look for yourself as I did when my state pur up a law lie that.

 

[Zceptre]

And it can be shown, in fact it's obvious, that the porn most likely to involve things like underage or obviously drugged participants, violence or animals, things like that, are the porn sites which won't be banned. Go ahead and look for yourself as I did when my state pur up a law lie that.

Exactly what I was referring to. The industry isn't run by legal entities and then infiltrated by illegal entities... It is run by illegal entities and pandered out to scapegoat individuals willing to take the risk that create legal businesses above the surface and work for the kingpins.

That is why the legal action against them is so casual and limited, because the same people that actually own the industry are unknown to anyone, and they own people in the courts and have their fingers in the above ground systems everywhere.

People can't even start to fathom the things they don't know about evil and how close it is to them everyday. The like to think danger is far, and bad things aren't happening to people or children, or things that are bad aren't "that bad."

It isn't any shock to me, that is for sure. As a matter of fact, it might very well simply be one of the unknown organizations taking out their competition... That's more likely the case than the given narrative. Supply and demand is the principle feeding the machine, meaning the people are the support system that allows it to exist, and their ignorance of the evil behind the curtain is one of the reasons for that support.

 

[Desk trauma]

Exactly what I was referring to. The industry isn't run by legal entities and then infiltrated by illegal entities... It is run by illegal entities and pandered out to scapegoat individuals willing to take the risk that create legal businesses above the surface and work for the kingpins.

That is why the legal action against them is so casual and limited, because the same people that actually own the industry are unknown to anyone, and they own people in the courts and have their fingers in the above ground systems everywhere.

People can't even start to fathom the things they don't know about evil and how close it is to them everyday. The like to think danger is far, and bad things aren't happening to people or children, or things that are bad aren't "that bad."

It isn't any shock to me, that is for sure. As a matter of fact, it might very well simply be one of the unknown organizations taking out their competition... That's more likely the case than the given narrative. Supply and demand is the principle feeding the machine, meaning the people are the support system that allows it to exist, and their ignorance of the evil behind the curtain is one of the reasons for that support.

Well that’s some SRA level stuff.

 

[durangodawood]

.....It'd be like trying to solve the problem of people speeding in their cars.
We've already made the cars that go well over 65mph
Cars are so ubiquitous that it's impossible to track everyone at once
We've developed tech that alerts people to where the cops are hiding

Now, how do we stop people from going over 65mph?

Selective enforcement and penalties. Thats how we actually enforce speed limits. Its very incomplete of course. But thats no reason to take down the 25mph signs in neighborhoods and free drivers to choose their own speed.

The answer: Short of some measures that would be a serious invasion of privacy (or downright totalitarian), the best that can be hoped for is limited enforcement where a best case scenario is they catch it 1 out of every 10,000 instances (if they're lucky)

I like internet privacy of course. Most people do. But I wonder if total privacy is a bit of a contrived expectation. I mean for most of human existence if you went somewhere to do something, people could see you and see that it is you.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Exactly what I was referring to. The industry isn't run by legal entities and then infiltrated by illegal entities... It is run by illegal entities and pandered out to scapegoat individuals willing to take the risk that create legal businesses above the surface and work for the kingpins.

That is why the legal action against them is so casual and limited, because the same people that actually own the industry are unknown to anyone, and they own people in the courts and have their fingers in the above ground systems everywhere.

People can't even start to fathom the things they don't know about evil and how close it is to them everyday. The like to think danger is far, and bad things aren't happening to people or children, or things that are bad aren't "that bad."

It isn't any shock to me, that is for sure. As a matter of fact, it might very well simply be one of the unknown organizations taking out their competition... That's more likely the case than the given narrative. Supply and demand is the principle feeding the machine, meaning the people are the support system that allows it to exist, and their ignorance of the evil behind the curtain is one of the reasons for that support.

lol. Well I now know for 1,000% certain I know more. This is more in line with what they “teach” in “recovery” in more conservative, non-medically founded addiction groups, where the message is guilt-based stuff about how porn is bad but liking it and looking at it isn’t your fault. It’s the industry’s fault, the woman’s fault, the shadow corporations fault… But never yours.

 

[zippy2006]

That'd be like saying "We saw huge number of people drinking bud light, so we're going to put this barrier in place that makes it much more difficult to access bud light"

And then upon seeing that they all merely switched to Coors light but are still consuming beer at the same rates, saying "See it worked, they're not drinking as much bud light"

On your own reasoning, it worked, given that they intended to limit access to Bud Light.

There is no way to "address the VPN use"

Sure there are. It's called legislating against VPN companies. Going after the actors who make illegal activity possible is as old as government itself.

VPN providers in other countries operate outside the jurisdiction of the censoring government (The US can't for a Czech provider to do anything, for the same reason Iran can't force a US vpn provider to do anything)

I wonder how the FBI managed to shut down Z-Lib? You're not living in reality.

 

[zippy2006]

Except guns kill people and viewing porn does not. Yet somehow limiting access to porn to “keep kids safe” is applauded, but limiting access to guns to keep kids safe is an unreasonable and offensive thing to ask.

The morality police’s double standards are fun.

The case literally argues that the two are parallel, given that we have age-verification mechanisms in place to protect children from guns.

 

[BCP1928]

On your own reasoning, it worked, given that they intended to limit access to Bud Light.


Sure there are. It's called legislating against VPN companies. Going after the actors who make illegal activity possible is as old as government itself.

It is possible to disapprove of pornography and desire to limit children's access to to it without necessarily approving of this bill.

 

[zippy2006]

It is possible to disapprove of pornography and desire to limit children's access to to it without necessarily approving of this bill.

Yes, and it possible to disapprove of the bill without disagreeing with the decision. Hardly anyone here is talking about the decision.