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.
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
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.
I just really hate this place and the people who post here
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.
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.
I find it odd that you suggest that I am somehow stupid, and you smart, when I was able to read and parse the ruling and you were not.
I also explained to you why that question you asked seems disingenuous, including referencing the judgment.
This law was not about preventing children from seeing pornography. It was about effectively banning pornography on the state. Same reason voter ID isn’t about limiting voter fraud, but about putting hurdles in the way of people who would otherwise vote against the party that supports voter ID.
Only one of us is being stupid here, and it isn’t the person that is here explaining the judgment.
I wasn’t talking about the ruling. I was talking about how people in here feel about kids accessing pornography
My question was for a purpose, but it wasn’t disingenuous. I seriously am concerned that lemmy users might not think there’s anything wrong with kids seeing pornography.
I don’t think that this law should go into effect, but that’s also not what I asked. I asked nothing about the law or the ruling, because I already agree that this isn’t the solution.
What I was worried about was that we might not be aligned as to why it wasn’t the solution. Or that there was even an issue at all to solve.
And like I said, the visceral negative reaction I’ve received even asking that question really tells me all I need to know.
Now voter ID just makes sense. When I walk up to a voting booth I say “my name is Strangle” and they cross me off the list and hand me a pencil. I could go the next town over and say “my name is SCB, give me a pencil”
That’s obviously fraud and it’s against the law, but if you were a corrupt politician, you could - let’s say - get a bunch of deceased people on the voter registration list, and then send some cronies to those booths claiming to be those people and manufacture votes that way.
Voter ID would go a long way to limit that kind of exploitation of the system.
Of course, this only makes sense if you actually want a legit election. If all you care about is going further and further left every election and going right at any point is a step in the wrong direction, you won’t understand that.
There are people who literally think anything, hook or crook, is worth it to stop a Republican from office.
That’s scary, cause people who think that think breaking the law or whatever (censoring news stories during an election and banning newspapers from Twitter) is justified because ‘democracy is at risk if we don’t elect a democrst’
The problem you describe for Voter ID does not exist. I mean that literally - people who attempt that already get caught. Voter ID laws do demonstrably create a hurdle for certain people who should be eligible to vote to actually do so - they do this by design, because the State could absolutely just mail voter ID cards for free to every registered voter, or allow some 2FA method of voting remotely (as with mail-in ballots) which from context I am already fairly certain you do not support.
Similarly, your take on porn is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. Parental controls are more than capable. I didn’t use them with my teen because I didn’t feel the need to. She has a very healthy understanding of and sense of responsibility toward sex. We are extremely open about sex in my house. I do not, and don’t think any parent would, support strangers coming into my home to dictate what is a healthy sexual attitude for my child.
I am not a leftist, and currently have several leftists yelling at me for correcting their poor assumptions and understanding of how the world works. Not sure why you keep bringing up leftists.
I’m not sure you’re really trying to understand the problem here. Why do you think people don’t want to answer the question?
It’s a simple question with an obvious answer. The real question is, why would you ask that? You’re not just looking for a, “Yes.” The obvious suspicion is that it’s a leading question, and you’ll use it to try and coerce a subsequent point. It doesn’t matter if you’re genuinely not trying to do that. It’s upon you to recognize how your own question may be perceived.
The reason the guy replied, “define kids, etc” was because he was already anticipating that this isn’t the real answer you’re looking for. I can say with considerable confidence that the vast majority of people here will understand this.
I agree that kids should not be exposed to porn.
I’m sure you’ll fit right in on truth social
Really, bruh?
Really
Ezekiel 23:18-21
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.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
So kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography, right?
deleted by creator
As long as we agree on that