Score one for Pornhub: A federal judge ruled Thursday that a Texas law requiring pornography sites to institute age-verification measures — and add prominent warning labels about the alleged …

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/4221949

Court Rules in Pornhub’s Favor in Finding Texas Age-Verification Law Violates First Amendment::A Texas law requiring age-verification measures for porn sites, challenged by Pornhub and others, violates the First Amendment, a judge ruled.

  • Strangle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    313·
    1 year ago

    Okay, but can we all agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography?

    You guys are really downvoting this? Man you guys fucking suck. What’s wrong with you people?

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      132·
      1 year ago

      Define “kids”

      Define “pornography”

      I’m not being pedantic - this is one of the reasons the law was struck down.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          61·
          1 year ago

          From my post explaining the judgment in non-legalese above

          4: “sweep” of law (that is, who it is designed to protect) is unclear due to widely varying harm between different levels of minors. For instance, sites that offer Sex Ed to older teens would also be impacted

          • Strangle@lemmy.worldEnglish
            112·
            1 year ago

            I’m just trying to make sure you guys agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography.

            Some fucking retard is asking me to define ‘kids’ and ‘pornography’

            Everyone immediately downvoting my comment of ‘you guys don’t think kids should be exposed to pornography, right?’

            I think this is an important distinction. We need to start there and then we can move forward and find ways to protect them from it.

            But it makes sense to make sure we are starting from the same place.

            The dude asking about what kids and pornography means is probably a fucking creep

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              112·
              1 year ago

              That “fucking retard” is also me, and as I added to the comment, that specific difference is part of the judgment.

              People are downvoting you for the same reason they disapprove of the law - your comment seems disingenuous.

              Ways to protect children already exist, and are more effective, as the judgment also found.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  122·
                  1 year ago

                  This is a solvable problem. You can just not log in.

                  Not sure why you hate people for explaining a judgment to you that you clearly did not read.

                  • Strangle@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    13·
                    1 year ago

                    I’ve been thinking about it pretty hard over the past couple days.

                    There is nothing for me here, why would I bother keeping this app on my phone?

                    I hate lemmy users because of how stupid they are and how far left they lie thinking is. ‘Explaining’ a judgment to me doesn’t answer the question of “but we still don’t want kids exposed to porn, right guys?”

                    And the reactions I’ve gotten even asking that question really makes me read between the lines on this. Your answer of ‘well define kids and porno’ really really make me read between the lines.

                    Should be a pretty easy thing for everyone here to agree on, but it’s been a visceral reaction to dodge the question and downvote the idea, even.

                    That tells me all I really need to know.

            • Hyperreality@kbin.social
              2·
              1 year ago

              “When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.”

              Ezekiel 23:18-21

              “So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.”

              Genesis 19:35

              Prostitution, horse sized dicks, breast fondling, incest and rape.

              Should Americans under the age of 18 be banned from reading the bible because it is arguably pornographic?

              Or is it important that we define what constitutes pornography and what constitutes a child, so that banning the bible isn’t possible?

              And don’t think this is me simply being funny. The bible has been been banned in some schools and for some ages, thanks to these kinds of overly broad and poorly written laws.

    • End0fLine@startrek.websiteOPEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure why you felt the need to say this. Have you met many people that are OK with kids watching porn?

      • Strangle@lemmy.worldEnglish
        112·
        1 year ago

        It Lemmy, it’s a bunch of underaged communists here and weird creepy tech bros.

        The two comments made here were very unclear about what made them happy about this. I’m just making sure you guys celebrating this aren’t a bunch of fucking weirdos.

        So we agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography?

        Good.

        Now what do we do about it?

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          101·
          1 year ago

          Per the judgment, parental monitoring software is both superior in efficacy, per the state’s own findings, and sufficient under the intent of the law to prevent minors from accessing pornography, while not inviting first amendment challenges

          In other words, as the state likes to claim about schools, parents are the ones responsible for preventing access to content the parents fund questionable.

          My full explainer of the judgment is above if you’d like to read it.

        • Boddhisatva@kbin.social
          3·
          1 year ago

          How about the common sense thing? It’s the parents’ job to monitor their kid’s internet activities. If you give your kid unfettered access to the internet on their phone of computer than you should be held liable for the results. If your kid lets their friends access porn on those insecure devices that too is your fault. If their school fails to lock down their network to block inappropriate material then that school should be held liable.

          The current Texas law puts every adult user’s privacy at risk rather than holding the parents responsible for their own failures. In addition, it’s written so broadly that it would quickly be used against any site the Texas Republicans choose to target in their culture wars such as sex-ed and LGBTQ+ education sites.

          • Strangle@lemmy.worldEnglish
            13·
            1 year ago

            I think you guys are misunderstanding my stance on this. I don’t like this solution either.

            But I do want to make sure people are celebrating this for a reason that makes sense, and not because they don’t care if kids have access to pornography.

            Because I do not believe that anyone is able to monitor someone else’s internet access exclusively at all times. Kids go to friends houses, or get friends devices all the time.

            Pornography is accessible in places that are not exclusively pornhub.

            You would have to block lemmy from your router if you had kids, for example.

            Not many parents are even tech savvy enough to know that’s possible, or even what lemmy is.

            This is not the right solution, but neither is slapping a label of 18+ on content.

            It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that a lot of people commenting on this are just absolutely fine with children being exposed to inappropriate sexual materials online. Because lemmy’s user base skews hard to the left

            • Redhotkurt@kbin.social
              51·
              1 year ago

              You just proved my point, you’re constantly changing the subject. Well, good luck with that, boomer.

              • Strangle@lemmy.worldEnglish
                13·
                1 year ago

                Sorry, didn’t you change the subject when you said that? I said almost word for word what you already said lmao

                Are you okay, man? I was following YOUR lead

                • UnhingedFridge@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  4·
                  1 year ago

                  I think the issue here is that people don’t want to share private data such as their fucking driver’s license with a tech company that can be hacked, rather than whatever the fuck you’re pulling out your ass, but you’re too fucking retarded to understand nuance outside of it mentioning “porn,” “access,” and “children.”

                  It’s a big “what about” - where you rolled back around to missing the entire fucking point while also confirming that you’re a right-wing dipshit.

                  They pointed out that your entire argument is in bad faith, and you confirmed that your entire argument is in bad faith - just to dumb it down further since you clearly fucking need it.

    • Zetta
      4·
      1 year ago

      Generally speaking that should be the goal, but I started watching porn when I was pretty young and would do so again if I had to start my life over. It’s up to parents to stop that kind of behavior, not the government.

      Generally I think there should be zero regulation on age verification for things like porn and other “adult” content.

      It’s the parents job to police their kids, not the state. Any government regulations regarding age verification would likely infringe on our rights.