Supreme Court rules in favor of anti-porn law

[durangodawood]

When was the last time you've heard about large numbers of children becoming addicted to alcohol?

I was talking about how the law deals with alcohol for adults. Loads of addiction, yet we've come to find its better to let adults make their own choices in a regulated environment.

Yes, and it's in our philosophies of "liberty" that the denotations (and their unspoken, personalized connotations) are legally defined and arbitrated.

"Liberty" is a protean meme and becomes whatever the ruling factions say it is.

I was hoping you and I would have a common sense of what human liberty means.

 

[Jamdoc]

Despite the fact that one is in theory not supposed to be able to do so as a minor because they’re supposed to furnish ID…

Are we really going to need me to explain to you how guns and ammo are connected to each other…? Because most people understand how ammo falls under gun regulation without requiring an explanation. If you do not, that’s fine… Unique, but fine… But that isn’t moving a goal post.

if they have ammo but not a gun to shoot it out of they're posing a danger to themselves or others... how?

The firearm can't be bought online and just shipped to your door, you have to go through a FFL licensed dealer to do the background check on you still.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

if they have ammo but not a gun to shoot it out of they're posing a danger to themselves or others... how?

You really think people with no guns are buying ammunition…?

The firearm can't be bought online and just shipped to your door, you have to go through a FFL licensed dealer to do the background check on you still.

Firearms can be bought online, actually… Easily. My local gun shop has it. How do you not know this?

 

[Jamdoc]

You really think people with no guns are buying ammunition…?

Firearms can be bought online, actually… Easily. My local gun shop has it. How do you not know this?

You have to go through an FFL before you can pick it up. You can't have it delivered to your door. The FFL performs the background check.

How do you apparently not know this?

and yeah, a kid can't buy a firearm online so even if they somehow are buying ammo they... still aren't able to use it. They get ahold of parent's guns, or steal them.
and that's not being stopped by laws or legislation since it's .. going against the law in the first place.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

You have to go through an FFL before you can pick it up. You can't have it delivered to your door. The FFL performs the background check.

How do you apparently not know this?

and yeah, a kid can't buy a firearm online so even if they somehow are buying ammo they... still aren't able to use it. They get ahold of parent's guns, or steal them.
and that's not being stopped by laws or legislation since it's .. going against the law in the first place.

lol… Man, the mental gymnastics you’ve got to do to justify your selective outrage is a level of cognitive dissonance I just can’t do. Listening to you, you acknowledge they are not allowed to buy ammo legally, but do quite easily, but it’s ok (despite being illegal), because people buy ammo without needing it all the time and what could possibly go wrong? And sure, they can have the ammo they got illegally, and you admit they can get the guns easily from their parents or theft, or by having it shipped to them, but none of those failures that can and do result in people dying has to do with gun regulation failures…

But then you decide to get big mad about porn and not acknowledge you’re wanting to make it harder to access that then guns, which kill people… Insert a rant about morality here, and selective outrage is alive and well. lol!

 

[Jamdoc]

lol… Man, the mental gymnastics you’ve got to do to justify your selective outrage is a level of cognitive dissonance I just can’t do. Listening to you, you acknowledge they are not allowed to buy ammo legally, but do quite easily, but it’s ok (despite being illegal), because people buy ammo without needing it all the time and what could possibly go wrong? And sure, they can have the ammo they got illegally, and you admit they can get the guns easily from their parents or theft, or by having it shipped to them, but none of those failures that can and do result in people dying has to do with gun regulation failures…

But then you decide to get big mad about porn and not acknowledge you’re wanting to make it harder to access that then guns, which kill people… Insert a rant about morality here, and selective outrage is alive and well. lol!

You can buy ammo legally, I never said you couldn't. The restrictions are on firearms, not accessories or ammo.

I'm saying you moved goalposts, somehow arguing that porn is more restricted than firearms cause liberals believe everything that's in CNN headlines or whatever. I said no, firearms are more restricted than pornography even under these verification laws, and you say "well they can buy ammo!"
They still have more hurdles to jump over or laws to break, in order to shoot that ammo, than viewing porn, because they need a gun to do so, and the gun involves background checks, which of course, also involves checking legal age.

and yet somehow you think that being able to buy ammo easily means that porn is more restricted than firearms.

You've watched too much porn.

 

[zippy2006]

So lets try the reader's digest version here:

1) Speed limit signs are pretty pointless (180 million instances of speeding happen every day, only 0.08% are apprehended)
2) Laws trying to get people to stop looking at porn are pointless (everyone's going to find a way to do it)

Again, I am asking why you brought up speed limits. How do they play into your argument? What is that argument? How do speed limit signs help you in this thread? Provide the actual argument that leverages speed limit signs.

 

[Laeomis]

Pornography should be outlawed at the production level. It is practically prostitution, which is illegal. Most pornography comes from a few states. The head of the serpent has to be cut off.

 

[Desk trauma]

Pornography should be outlawed at the production level. It is practically prostitution, which is illegal. Most pornography comes from a few states. The head of the serpent has to be cut off.

Sounds like you have some voters to convince.

 

[BCP1928]

Again, I am asking why you brought up speed limits. How do they play into your argument? What is that argument? How do speed limit signs help you in this thread? Provide the actual argument that leverages speed limit signs.

The best way to catch him out would be to propose an effective anti-pornography law and see if he objects to that as well. Then you've got him.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is not a very thoughtful way to declare speed limit signs "pointless".

If "pointless" can't be defined by an effort to curtail a "prohibited behavior" in which 90% of the population engages in almost daily due to us creating all of the incentives and opportunity to do, and in which there's only a 0.08% success rate of actually detecting and enforcing it, then I don't know what does.

We've intentionally designed and marketed cars to go well over 75mph... even the base level "soccer mom van" will do 80mph+ if you put the pedal down. We've developed numerous tools like radar detectors and Google Maps/Apple Maps/Waze which all tell you where the cops are hiding.

And then say "Gee, how do we get people to keep it to 65mph or less??"


Same is true with the internet...

We've designed a system that's the "world wide web"...the intention being that we can get to websites everywhere in the world, developed privacy tools and anonymizing tools specifically with the intention of keeping eyes (including that of world governments) out of what people are doing on there. And then loaded it up with ton of a particular type of content that people like to look at (whether they admit it, or embarrassed about it, or otherwise)

And then 20 years later, asked the question "Gee, how do we put some guardrails on this?"



Both are examples of issues that could be described as "We let it get so far away from us, that now the only way to even have a chance of reigning it in would be via measures that are draconian"


To use another topic as an example:

Gun control...

What's easier? Having control measures right from the get-go before 200 million people have built their own private arsenal?

Or letting them all get them first, and then trying to find some sort of way to get them back from people after the fact?

What if recording was only engaged when speeding hit a certain threshold?

Nope... I work in the tech field, bugs can and do occur.

That would create the same kinds of risks.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Again, I am asking why you brought up speed limits. How do they play into your argument? What is that argument? How do speed limit signs help you in this thread? Provide the actual argument that leverages speed limit signs.

I brought it up because, much like people using the internet for porn, it's also a ubiquitous "pandora's box" situation where it's a behavior that's so widespread that the time for thinking through a feasible way to try to "contain it" has long since passed...

It's like handing you my car keys and a bottle of tequila first, and then saying "Hmmm...now I need to find a way to ensure that Zippy isn't going to drive drunk"

I already gave you the keys and booze, it's a little late for that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In my Commonwealth, (Pennsylvania), only State Troopers are allowed to use radar, and must allow 10%. So on highways posted @70mph, 77mph is “okay”.
Local cops are limited to VASCAR (and the like) and must allow 10mph over the posted “speed limit”; 45mph in a posted 35mph. (@46mph, you’re liable for the full 11mph over the limit.)
The exceptions for both is if a LEO clocks your car with a (recently) calibrated speedometer then 1mph over posted is ticketable.

So it sounds like my assertion is correct, that sign on the side of the road that says 45mph is fairly "pointless" even apart from the other things I mentioned.

In addition to google maps showing me where the cops were spotted hiding, I can cruise right past them doing 44 in a 35, and in the majority of cases, there's not really anything they can do about it.

 

[zippy2006]

I brought it up because, much like people using the internet for porn, it's also a ubiquitous "pandora's box" situation where it's a behavior that's so widespread that the time for thinking through a feasible way to try to "contain it" has long since passed...

It's like handing you my car keys and a bottle of tequila first, and then saying "Hmmm...now I need to find a way to ensure that Zippy isn't going to drive drunk"

I already gave you the keys and booze, it's a little late for that.

So we have:

1. An anti-porn law is like a speed limit law
2. A speed limit law tries to address a "pandora's box" situation
3. Therefore, an anti-porn law tries to address a "pandora's box" situation

And your idea here is surely that "pandora's box" situations are impossible to solve, therefore anything which tries to address them is pointless, therefore such laws are pointless. That's the idea, isn't it? You're obviously claiming that such laws are otiose.

 

[BCP1928]

So we have:

1. An anti-porn law is like a speed limit law
2. A speed limit law tries to address a "pandora's box" situation
3. Therefore, an anti-porn law tries to address a "pandora's box" situation

And your idea here is surely that "pandora's box" situations are impossible to solve, therefore anything which tries to address them is pointless, therefore such laws are pointless. That's the idea, isn't it? You're obviously claiming that such laws are otiose.

No, just this particular law.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So we have:

1. An anti-porn law is like a speed limit law
2. A speed limit law tries to address a "pandora's box" situation
3. Therefore, an anti-porn law tries to address a "pandora's box" situation

And your idea here is surely that "pandora's box" situations are impossible to solve, therefore anything which tries to address them is pointless, therefore such laws are pointless. That's the idea, isn't it? You're obviously claiming that such laws are otiose.

#3 is not a "therefore" situation.

They were both already pandora's box situations in their own ways.

Both are situations where
-- we've made the tools to do it ubiquitous (much like almost everyone owns a car that can easily exceed speed limits with a light press of a pedal, almost everyone carries around a device in their pocket that can be used for adult content with a few button clicks)

-- we've made the tools for avoiding/circumnavigating detection plentiful (much like we have radar detectors, and every major GPS map application shows where the cops are hiding, the internet has its own tools for concealment)

-- previous and current enforcement efforts in both realms have yielded poor success rates (including the types of efforts that are near carbon copies of the ones Texas wants to try -- Louisiana has already given this a try for 2 years, it hasn't worked)

 

[durangodawood]

If "pointless" can't be defined by an effort to curtail a "prohibited behavior" in which 90% of the population engages in almost daily due to us creating all of the incentives and opportunity to do, and in which there's only a 0.08% success rate of actually detecting and enforcing it, then I don't know what does.

Speed limits and signs give people a sense of the de facto acceptable window for speed,. Theres places all over here with 45 mph limits where people keep it to around 50 - but loads would be doing 60+ if it was entirely up to their own judgement. Its a heck of lot better than no signs, no limits.

Same is true with the internet...

We've designed a system that's the "world wide web"...the intention being that we can get to websites everywhere in the world, developed privacy tools and anonymizing tools specifically with the intention of keeping eyes (including that of world governments) out of what people are doing on there. And then loaded it up with ton of a particular type of content that people like to look at (whether they admit it, or embarrassed about it, or otherwise)

And then 20 years later, asked the question "Gee, how do we put some guardrails on this?"

Speed limits have been around for generations, doing important work as I noted above. So I dont see how its a comparison to the www. I do agree about you characterization of the internet. Its gone wayyy down the low-regulation road to where we are today.

To use another topic as an example:

Gun control...

This a is a better comparison.

Nope... I work in the tech field, bugs can and do occur.

That would create the same kinds of risks.

I dont follow. Bugs happen therefore the concept is infeasible?

 

[zippy2006]

#3 is not a "therefore" situation.

They were both already pandora's box situations in their own ways.

Both are situations where
-- we've made the tools to do it ubiquitous (much like almost everyone owns a car that can easily exceed speed limits with a light press of a pedal, almost everyone carries around a device in their pocket that can be used for adult content with a few button clicks)

-- we've made the tools for avoiding/circumnavigating detection plentiful (much like we have radar detectors, and every major GPS map application shows where the cops are hiding, the internet has its own tools for concealment)

-- previous and current enforcement efforts in both realms have yielded poor success rates (including the types of efforts that are near carbon copies of the ones Texas wants to try -- Louisiana has already given this a try for 2 years, it hasn't worked)

So after six or seven evasive posts are you finally ready to admit that your argument involves the idea that speed limit laws are pointless or otiose? Or do we need to keep beating around the bush for another dozen posts??

@durangodawood's points above are exactly correct. Speed limit laws are not pointless or otiose. It is the libertarian mindset which erroneously views them to be pointless or otiose. The libertarian mindset apparently cannot understand the purpose of a speed limit law, and if the libertarian cannot understand the purpose of a speed limit law, it is highly doubtful that he will be able to understand the purpose of regulatory laws in other sectors.

Now we could take the time to try to convince you that speed limit laws are not pointless, but at the end of that you would just say, "Oh okay, but now I take back my premise that the Texas law is like a speed limit law. They are no longer alike." Again, the biggest problem here is gish gallop, where you throw a dozen arguments at a wall, hope a few of them stick, and refuse to consider the possibility that your own position has been endangered when they either fail to stick or else backfire.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I dont follow. Bugs happen therefore the concept is infeasible?

Yes, because those bugs will expose private information about people in ways that other people would almost certainly use to leverage people for various reasons.

I'd rather not have public policy and elections determined by which faction of hackers can figure out which kinds of porn particular candidates are looking at on the internet.

If people think that "Russians facilitating the leaking of Hillary's emails" was an egregious example of election manipulation via the dissemination of that info on social media... wait until you see what it looks like when there are conveniently timed data dumps a week before an election telling everyone "Hey look what kind of videos Candidate ABC was looking at", or having an important vote coming up in the house or senate, and people getting "Hey, it'd be a shame if your wife saw this" emails from a non-descript proton mail account.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So after six or seven evasive posts are you finally ready to admit that your argument involves the idea that speed limit laws are pointless or otiose? Or do we need to keep beating around the bush for another dozen posts??

I don't understand what you're looking for here?

Beating around what bush?


Okay, fine, forget all the speed limit stuff, pretend it never happened...I'm getting to the point of being done discussing this aspect with you because you keep conflating matters and using circular logic and chopping up little bits into things you can conveniently rebuttal out of context.


what is it exactly that you're looking for me to answer or say here?