- Nov 9, 2013
- 7,626
- 3,840
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
What do you claim the intended purpose of the law is?
How do we "do it right," in your opinion?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Supreme Court rules in favor of anti-porn law
- Thread starter zippy2006
- Start date
BCP1928
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2024
- 8,208
- 4,125
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
To make internet porn inaccessible to minors.
Treat the whole issue of a young' persons emerging sexuality in a comprehensive way. Just making only some porn inaccessible and leaving the child otherwise in ignorance about sex. is not going to solve the problem .
Upvote
0
- Aug 20, 2019
- 12,206
- 13,078
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Isn't that part of the issue here, minors accessing pornography is already in violation of the law? The added verification, although intended to protect children, is more than just incidentally restrictive, as Thomas puts it. It's a direct regulation of speech for adults.
Upvote
0
BCP1928
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2024
- 8,208
- 4,125
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
I was thinking of younger kids. They hardly know what arousal is.
Which many children do not.
That's the point. do you want to have your kid learn about sex in a way that helps him develop reasonable expectations? Or do you want him to learn by watching a video about two girls and a donkey? At least if the first kid watches the donkey movie too he'll have some basis for realizing that it's silly.
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,044
- 9,776
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
As you have declined to articulate your claim any further than simply stating it, there's nothing to argue against.
I'll remind you, the burden of proof in an argument falls on the person making the claim - namely you. That's why you were asked if you thought grocery stores were risky places - a question, I'll note, you have yet to answer.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,044
- 9,776
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
This would seem to be at odds with your prior claim about selling material prohibited to minors being correlated with untrustworthiness and risk.
Given the data breach notices I receive on what feels like a weekly basis from reputable, responsible companies who follow all of the required security protocols, I see no reason to trust that anyone is capable of actually keeping my data secure.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,511
- 11,427
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Nov 9, 2013
- 7,626
- 3,840
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
An unenforced law is really not a law at all.
Here is a central argument from Thomas that no one has addressed:
- If online age verification is unconstitutional, then in-person age verification is unconstitutional
- In-person age verification is not unconstitutional
- Therefore, online age verification is not unconstitutional
Upvote
0
- Nov 9, 2013
- 7,626
- 3,840
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
Okay, I agree. Or at least to contribute to that problem.
The law does not say that we must "leave the child otherwise in ignorance about sex." Why would you attach that idea to the law?
Upvote
0
- Nov 9, 2013
- 7,626
- 3,840
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
...Therefore we must let companies serve hardcore pornography without any age verification? How does that follow?
I'm still waiting for you to produce an argument. You've posted a number of times in this thread. You haven't managed a single argument. Your whole game has been vague (and fallacious) insinuation.
Upvote
0
- Nov 9, 2013
- 7,626
- 3,840
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
What's interesting about those who oppose the ruling is that they seem unable or unwilling to consider the bigger picture. The logical conclusion of their view is that we should never require online age verification, for any reason. For many it is even the idea that we should not direct legislation at internet companies, full stop. You can take the arguments they are using and support these ideas quite easily. The first one actually seems inevitable if we accept the arguments in play.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,511
- 11,427
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,272
- 18,989
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Often it does. When the broad language of the constitution is tested in court, we often find its implementation hinges on tests like "reasonableness".
Upvote
0
- Nov 9, 2013
- 7,626
- 3,840
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
I think @ThatRobGuy is recycling many of his own arguments from the thread, "Australia Bans Under 16's from Social Media." That case was different insofar as there were no reliable age-verification methods in place, and the court didn't care.
But my point is that it is not logically valid to say, for example in the Australian case, "There are currently no acceptable methods of age-verification for 16 year-olds, therefore the law is unconstitutional." A law could be feasible in 2028 which was not feasible in 2018, and the contingent state of technology does not bear on free speech rights directly. It could bear on free speech rights indirectly, via something like invasion of privacy. But in that case you are not striking down the law on free speech grounds. Instead you would be striking it down on privacy grounds, given the current state of technology. The argument in that case is bound up with both free speech and privacy, where the privacy concern is contingent on current technology.
But again, when it comes to the Texas law we already have reliable ways to verify an online user's age. It is different from the Australian law in that way. (I.e. figuring out whether someone is 18 is much easier than figuring out whether they are 16.)
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,044
- 9,776
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
If you don't have a way to verify a person's age securely, then yes - the potential harm caused by exposing identification data to hackers is greater than the harm prevented by possibly preventing minors from accessing a small subset of pornographic websites.
My "game" has mostly been trying to get you to answer the question posed to you on the first page, about whether you think grocery stores and department stores are risky and untrustworthy. I feel like I've been pretty clear about that.
Upvote
0
- Nov 9, 2013
- 7,626
- 3,840
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
So if I want to host things that are illegal for minors to view on my website, all I have to do is make the website shady and I'm good? As long as the website is seen to be technologically "insecure," then apparently on your reasoning we can never enforce age-restrictions on that website. Hmm.
I think grocery stores that sell guns (to use the objector's example) are more untrustworthy and risky than grocery stores that do not sell guns, yep. That's what it means to say that there is a correlation.
What this all means is that, on your reasoning, the shadiest and most problematic websites are precisely the ones that can never be addressed by legislation. So we could promulgate a law which requires banking websites which distribute pornography to verify the age of the user, since they are secure. But we just can't require shady websites to verify the age of the user, since they are insecure. So if the pornography site is shady then it gets a pass (and nevermind the giant correlation between shadiness and pornography!). Brilliant stuff here.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,272
- 18,989
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Humans are generally reactive about problems. And who can blame them? Its sometimes hard to predict what the problem will be. And people are wary of expending effort without certainty of a return in value.
Perhaps this is one of those times when we simply need to accept the pain and hassle of applying the solution late in the game and see what emerges?
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,044
- 9,776
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Clearly you didn't read my previous post. A site does not need to be "shady" to suffer security breaches. Rather than focusing on whether a site is perfectly secure, the consideration should be to figure out ways of age verification that do not require the user to have any personally-identifying information stored on a web server.
Why? (Also, the original question included beer, wine, and tobacco)
No, it isn't. Correlation requires data, not just a feeling. If you claim there is a correlation between "untrustworthiness and risk" and selling products prohibited to minors, you must first define "untrustworthiness and risk," then provide statistics showing that the metrics by which you determine them are higher at stores that sell them compared to stores that do not. I point you to my signature
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 34,673
- 20,146
- 29
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 34,673
- 20,146
- 29
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Similar threads
