Arkansas Proposes Requiring ID to Watch Porn Online(vice.com)
vice.com
Arkansas Proposes Requiring ID to Watch Porn Online
https://www.vice.com/en/article/akexaz/arkansas-porn-sites-id-age-verification
133 comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_...
I don't know that this is the work of ALEC, but its existence and goal is hardly some secret conspiracy.
I don't know that this is the work of ALEC, but its existence and goal is hardly some secret conspiracy.
[deleted]
Honestly this sounds like the work of a guy by the name of Chris Sevier. He was a lawyer but was disbarred after being ruled mentally incompetent to practice law. He sued for the right to marry his laptop. He has been pushing a variety of bills like this.
https://abovethelaw.com/tag/chris-sevier/
https://abovethelaw.com/tag/chris-sevier/
Given the current political climate, I would say it's less likely to be because of some start up and more likely to be part of the wider GOP effort to claim the world is full of predators who are trying to corrupt your child's innocence and groom them into sexual beings before their time. They're using the same augument to ban drag and any books the governor's team hasn't preapproved in Florida. We're entering satanic panic 2.
Except it's not irrational this time. Porn has gotten much more extreme and way easier to access than before. When I was a kid - I could only access porn magazines that were relatively tame.
Porn industry is not doing anything to prevent children from watching it.
If self-regulation is non-existent then the government has to step in.
Porn industry is not doing anything to prevent children from watching it.
If self-regulation is non-existent then the government has to step in.
Or... parent better? Kids are going to see messed up stuff. Teach them why it's wrong, and that coming to you about it is good. That they should respect women, and other human beings in general, and that porn is almost as fantastical as Star Wars. And restrict their internet yourself if it's that big of a deal.
I'm sick of people sucking at their responsibilities so much that they think the government doing it for them is a great option. It's lazy.
I'm sick of people sucking at their responsibilities so much that they think the government doing it for them is a great option. It's lazy.
As much as I agree, it is a little unsettling to see how extreme porn can be, specifically because of how easy it is to accidentally stumble across something extreme even when you didn't intend to. Even "hardcore" porn seems to have gotten harder-core in my lifetime alone, and if it weren't for the Web I'd probably never have seen anything other than old-school softcore stuff until much later in my life.
People are absolutely entitled to their own tastes, on or off camera, in a consensual setting. But I also think we can come up with better "on-ramps" to pornography and the wide variety of sex acts that exist in the world, without allowing young people to wander without warning into STEPMOM LET ME PUT IT WHERE?? DONT TELL DAD and YOUNG ANGEL TRIPLE GANGBANG and THINKING ABOUT MY CRUSH WHILE DOING FAIRLY EXTREME THINGS TO MY BUTT (a real title that I will never forget, and yes they were "extreme" even by today's standards).
Not to mention the subtle racism and often-not-subtle misogyny that still exists in traditional porn tropes, and IMO might be more harmful than actually watching porn itself.
Also the sheer amount of step-sibling porn on the free porn "tube" sites is especially weird and disconcerting, given that young people are most likely to see porn there and not on, say, an private OnlyFans channel or a production studio site like Brazzers.
Of course, we can't ever guide our children to healthy relationships with sex and pornography unless we actually talk about pornography with our children, which as a society we are not well-equipped to do.
People are absolutely entitled to their own tastes, on or off camera, in a consensual setting. But I also think we can come up with better "on-ramps" to pornography and the wide variety of sex acts that exist in the world, without allowing young people to wander without warning into STEPMOM LET ME PUT IT WHERE?? DONT TELL DAD and YOUNG ANGEL TRIPLE GANGBANG and THINKING ABOUT MY CRUSH WHILE DOING FAIRLY EXTREME THINGS TO MY BUTT (a real title that I will never forget, and yes they were "extreme" even by today's standards).
Not to mention the subtle racism and often-not-subtle misogyny that still exists in traditional porn tropes, and IMO might be more harmful than actually watching porn itself.
Also the sheer amount of step-sibling porn on the free porn "tube" sites is especially weird and disconcerting, given that young people are most likely to see porn there and not on, say, an private OnlyFans channel or a production studio site like Brazzers.
Of course, we can't ever guide our children to healthy relationships with sex and pornography unless we actually talk about pornography with our children, which as a society we are not well-equipped to do.
I was not able to access messed up stuff when I was a kid. We didn't have phones and internet. My parents didn't have to do anything special. But in today's environment - you just can't. Unless you lock your kid up and homeschool them. You can set up all sorts of parental controls on their computer and phone, but you can't do anything about their friends' phones and computers.
The porn you watched as a kid was fine, but the porn you watch today isn't acceptable for today's kids. Is that your position?
Not the porn I watch, but the porn that's easily accessible nowadays. BDSM, choking, simulated rape, incest and other more extreme stuff wasn't accessible anywhere when I was a kid. It wasn't something that you could find in your dad's or uncle's mancave.
It does seem to be starting in the conservative states probably because they would be most open to it. It's also being proposed in the UK. You could be right. Either way this should be stopped because when it reaches critical mass then it's just a matter of time before it becomes federal law. Should that come to pass I would hope they lean towards empowering parents by using the RTA header vs. some 3rd party site that would initially used to protect children and then more controls get added quarterly to protect the next thing and then the entire internet goes the way of Twitter.
The UK is quite a conservative state and has had several goes at this already, at least one of which fell apart as unworkable.
This is just one prong advancing the digital ID agenda.
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202211/advocacy-groups-urge-...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/massive-pandemic...
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202211/advocacy-groups-urge-...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/massive-pandemic...
Satanic panic 2 is seeing "far right" plots and nazis everywhere.
I wouldn't be surprised if big tech has a hand in it. There's a need to improve reputation and trust online and I think big tech is planning to use their new passwordless systems to marry identity and trust in a way that will make them the arbiters of identity and trustworthiness via attestation.
It'll start with having no passwords to remember, but before you know it parts of the internet will quit working if you don't have a big tech company vouching for you (not a bot, is an adult, etc.). As long as you log in with your Microsoft/Google/Apple account everything will be great, but if you don't nothing will work.
Non-tech people will be easily convinced with claims that logging in everywhere ensures bots and bad actors are excluded while "good" users can surf anywhere without hitting captchas, etc..
It'll start with having no passwords to remember, but before you know it parts of the internet will quit working if you don't have a big tech company vouching for you (not a bot, is an adult, etc.). As long as you log in with your Microsoft/Google/Apple account everything will be great, but if you don't nothing will work.
Non-tech people will be easily convinced with claims that logging in everywhere ensures bots and bad actors are excluded while "good" users can surf anywhere without hitting captchas, etc..
I don't think they will, if only because Reddit also has plenty of "NSFW" content, and there would be a ton of pushback on adding ID verification to Reddit.
> This seems to be popping off in each state back-to-back so I again assume this is some start-up company lobbying to get some tax dollars.
It’s been a thing in the conservative (in the very broad sense, where this includes a substantial subset of the Democratic Party, as well as most of the GOP) end of US politics for a long time to ban, restrict, and discourage (by requiring private information that is guaranteed to eventually be exposed) access to porn for a long time, e.g., while it did not explicitly require ID, the Communication’s Decency Act of 1996 required age verification, which sites attempted to comply with (before it was struck down) by requiring credit cards on file for even free accounts.
Somewhat similar requirements were included in the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (which was also struck down.)
COPA being struck down chilled legislative pursuit of this, though not the desire for it; I suspect the reason it has come up again now is the evidence that we have a Supreme Court majority that is both ideologically socially conservative and much less concerned about established precedent, at least on politically salient issues of interest to their social ideology, than has been the case in living memory (or, perhaps, ever), and legislators want to take full advantage of that while it lasts.
It’s been a thing in the conservative (in the very broad sense, where this includes a substantial subset of the Democratic Party, as well as most of the GOP) end of US politics for a long time to ban, restrict, and discourage (by requiring private information that is guaranteed to eventually be exposed) access to porn for a long time, e.g., while it did not explicitly require ID, the Communication’s Decency Act of 1996 required age verification, which sites attempted to comply with (before it was struck down) by requiring credit cards on file for even free accounts.
Somewhat similar requirements were included in the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (which was also struck down.)
COPA being struck down chilled legislative pursuit of this, though not the desire for it; I suspect the reason it has come up again now is the evidence that we have a Supreme Court majority that is both ideologically socially conservative and much less concerned about established precedent, at least on politically salient issues of interest to their social ideology, than has been the case in living memory (or, perhaps, ever), and legislators want to take full advantage of that while it lasts.
We did a good job keeping our kids away from porn on our home network but my 11-year-old daughter was shown porn by one of her friends during a sleep over. This was years ago before unlimited phone data and before pornhub was doing mainstream advertising. I cannot imagine how a parent can keep their children safe today.
> cannot imagine how a parent can keep their children safe today
Is there evidence such prohibition keeps kids safe? It’s the environment I grew up in. But the kids who had healthy home environments where such topics weren’t taboo seemed to have a leg up.
Is there evidence such prohibition keeps kids safe? It’s the environment I grew up in. But the kids who had healthy home environments where such topics weren’t taboo seemed to have a leg up.
A leg up in what? In having more mental health problems?
The majority of kids now have pretty much unlimited internet access and mental health issues have risen exponentially. Statistics don't seem to support your stance here.
The majority of kids now have pretty much unlimited internet access and mental health issues have risen exponentially. Statistics don't seem to support your stance here.
There's growing evidence that it's social media in its entirety which is the problem for kids - as a vehicle for unrealistic expectations, distorted self-image, and bullying. But the social media platforms mostly ban porn.
It's the constant easily obtained dopamine hits that are the problem. Porn and social media are exactly the same in that regard.
I would also disagree that social media does a good job of banning porn. There's also sorts of nasty stuff that gets shown to kids on social media, not just porn but violence as well.
I would also disagree that social media does a good job of banning porn. There's also sorts of nasty stuff that gets shown to kids on social media, not just porn but violence as well.
> There's also sorts of nasty stuff that gets shown to kids on social media, not just porn but violence as well.
I remember writing much the same in a letter to the editor back in the late 90s, while I was still at school[0].
Only difference is, I was pointing out how weird it was that 16-year-old-me was banned by law from seeing acts that I was allowed to perform[0] while at the same time outright homicide was a thing that sometimes got included in cartoons specifically deemed suitable for young children.
[0] the UK age of consent is 16 but the age to go into adult shops or see adult films is 18… or at least it was when I was 16 myself, I've had no reason to check if it still is or not.
I remember writing much the same in a letter to the editor back in the late 90s, while I was still at school[0].
Only difference is, I was pointing out how weird it was that 16-year-old-me was banned by law from seeing acts that I was allowed to perform[0] while at the same time outright homicide was a thing that sometimes got included in cartoons specifically deemed suitable for young children.
[0] the UK age of consent is 16 but the age to go into adult shops or see adult films is 18… or at least it was when I was 16 myself, I've had no reason to check if it still is or not.
It's a bit of a leap to assume that not wanting or allowing your 11-year-old to watch pornography means that such topics (presumably, sex) are completely "taboo" in the home.
It's quite a leap to assume that the parent had in mind exactly two scenarios and wasn't mentioning specifics from their life experience.
The difference is that my comment didn't suggest anyone had an unhealthy home environment based on their opinion on this topic. The parent comment did.
[deleted]
My daughter has a girlfriend who was watching hardcore porn at age 7 or 8 and telling my daughter all about it. That is not healthy for that kid. They are going to get the wrong impression of how to interact with boys and it is pretty clear something is off with that kid now.
We limit alcohol, driving, tobacco, voting for minors because we judge them not smart enough to make good decisions. Why do you feel we should not exclude hardcore porn?
We limit alcohol, driving, tobacco, voting for minors because we judge them not smart enough to make good decisions. Why do you feel we should not exclude hardcore porn?
> Why do you feel we should not exclude hardcore porn?
I don’t think kids should watch porn. I do think banning it will be as successful as we’ve been with alcohol, with the same blowback that comes from surrounding something in mystery and black markets.
I don’t think kids should watch porn. I do think banning it will be as successful as we’ve been with alcohol, with the same blowback that comes from surrounding something in mystery and black markets.
Raising barriers to access works. Kids generally do not drink alcohol, drive, vote or smoke. There are exceptions but it makes it a lot harder and does reduce access. And when they do drink and smoke it is generally when they are close in age to the end of the ban.
To say that some will get around it doesn’t mean we should not do what is best for that group as a whole.
Unlimited and early extensive use of social media and hardcore porn is not healthy for kids. It will screw up their worldview. We should ban and limit them smartly if we want to support healthy kids.
To say that some will get around it doesn’t mean we should not do what is best for that group as a whole.
Unlimited and early extensive use of social media and hardcore porn is not healthy for kids. It will screw up their worldview. We should ban and limit them smartly if we want to support healthy kids.
Porn, a digital good, is easier to circumvent access controls to than alcohol. And we’re crap at keeping our kids from drinking before they’re even fifteen [1].
So I agree with the goal: less porn in front of children. But I disagree with the method: trying to ban it.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/725020/age-of-first-alco...
So I agree with the goal: less porn in front of children. But I disagree with the method: trying to ban it.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/725020/age-of-first-alco...
I'm not sure this statistic tells us much. It'd be more interesting to compare something like teen alcoholism rates vs legal drinking age. For all we know an age requirement may very well lower alcohol abuse rates. Besides, I really don't see a reason not to restrict it - should we just legalize alcohol for all ages? I think not, because what we have right now most likely does not hurt. Same logic for porn.
If the goal of the 21 year old drinking age is to prevent addiction, its not working
The United States has one of the highest rates of alcohol addiction in the world.
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/alcoholism-by-country...
The United States has one of the highest rates of alcohol addiction in the world.
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/alcoholism-by-country...
No controlled trial means we don't know if it's helping or not. Nobody is saying that the legal drinking age is the sole determinant of addiction rates.
When I was a kid - it was not possible to access hardcore porn with one click. Even adults could not do it back then.
How did your parents keep you safe from one of your friends bringing an illicit copy of Playboy to your sleepovers?
When I was a kid I used to walk my dog around this nearby area that wasn't developed at all and every year some coomer would leave a giant pile of porn mag subscriptions from like a long time back, he'd be cycling out stuff from like 10 years ago and just leaving it on top of these rocks. I guess he was thinking someone might find them and take them away like some kind of treasure or something when really they'd just blow all over the place and cover the area in porn until it rained and sunbleached away while us kids would just laugh at it and try to keep the dog from sniffing it.
Playboy is way tamer than current porn sites where anything 18+ goes.
You can't keep your kids "safe" in the traditional Leave it to Beaver avoid at all costs and block it out sort of way.
You can keep your kids safe by educating them about what is out there, and by troubleshooting what they can do when confronted with it, as well as having on-going discussions about whatever the topic is and providing safe, non-judgmental escape chutes for when they need it.
And even then, you just have to hope for the best.
My two cents, for what that's worth. I have no research to back this up, just my own experience with my kids.
You can keep your kids safe by educating them about what is out there, and by troubleshooting what they can do when confronted with it, as well as having on-going discussions about whatever the topic is and providing safe, non-judgmental escape chutes for when they need it.
And even then, you just have to hope for the best.
My two cents, for what that's worth. I have no research to back this up, just my own experience with my kids.
I saw porn when I was 13 and not only do I have lots of fulfilling friendships and relationships, but I'm also high income. I'm getting the impression that perhaps this is just another in the list of dangerous things that aren't dangerous.
It's interesting that there's broad consensus for this but if the related question of misogynist-but-not-actually-pornographic influences from, say, recently arrested rapist Andrew Tate had come up, the question "how do we keep misogynist influencers away from children" or "how do we ensure kids are 18 before they first hear a racial or homophobic slur, let alone repeat them" would have met incredibly strong pushback.
The belief seems to be that ideological content is necessarily always entirely harmless, whereas nudity is magically harmful?
Not to mention widespread book-banning on the mere mention of LGBT people, which are deemed "not suitable for children" despite not actually having sexual content?
How do we actually determine harm here, and avoid being buffeted by propaganda? There's a long history of banning all sorts of things on think-of-the-children grounds. Things like "access to information about contraception" have previously been considered obscene. How do we avoid going round this discourse treadmill forever?
The belief seems to be that ideological content is necessarily always entirely harmless, whereas nudity is magically harmful?
Not to mention widespread book-banning on the mere mention of LGBT people, which are deemed "not suitable for children" despite not actually having sexual content?
How do we actually determine harm here, and avoid being buffeted by propaganda? There's a long history of banning all sorts of things on think-of-the-children grounds. Things like "access to information about contraception" have previously been considered obscene. How do we avoid going round this discourse treadmill forever?
IMO good sex ed basically eliminates all the negative effects of hard porn. Letting pornsites handle IDs just seems like a recipe for disaster
Watching porn is a hyperdopaminergic activity and the industry is highly exploitative to everyone involved. Sex ed is to porn what biochemistry class is to cocaine.
i hate being the source person but that's a pretty grand hyperbolic statement lacking details... mind expanding beyond just an opinion?
Like that fellow that claims children are sexual beings from birth? He wants to start sex ed at 3.
no, not like that fellow you didn't name and made an unbelievable and unsourced claim about
Take your pick; it seems to be a progressive plank that children should be having sex:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1624391129259966467
https://thepostmillennial.com/philadelphia-quaker-school-sex...
https://nypost.com/2022/12/02/planned-parenthood-director-bi...
If it's a progressive plank, surely you can provide an example of an actual progressive politician making the argument, yes? Instead of two private, non-elected people, that no one who doesn't have an agenda to push has ever heard of? You know, something to tie it to actual progressives, so that it doesn't just look like you're nutpicking.
I appreciate there is an arguably good intention here -- but nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING, good can come from this. This doesn't work, it never has, and is nearly solely for the purpose of overreach and control.
Yep, I'd much rather protect my kids from censorship than the things bring censored.
Regardless of whether or not I agree with requiring an ID, I do think we should try to do a better job of preventing young children from prowling the darker corners of the internet.
Best way through sex ed imo rather than leaving them on their own to bump into predators or other sick stuff
How does sex ed stop them from looking at porn incessantly?
The issue here isn't that they need to know how reproductive parts work, it's that easy access to porn is unhealthy for a developing brain. Constant dopamine hits like that have been proven to lead to all sorts of mental health issues.
The issue here isn't that they need to know how reproductive parts work, it's that easy access to porn is unhealthy for a developing brain. Constant dopamine hits like that have been proven to lead to all sorts of mental health issues.
Good sex ed. isn't just the mechanics of the body. It's also healthy habits, dangers, and pornography education as well. The problem is, when people hear sex ed. they immediately think of 7th grade and the basketball coach awkwardly holding a banana talking to the class before getting a stick of deodorant.
Again, you're not addressing the issue, which is the unhealthy rewiring of the brain. Nothing you've presented with sex ed would counteract that.
You also seem to think children have fully developed brains and are able to discern the difference between unhealthy fake porn and reality. This a scientifically, objectively wrong stance.
You also seem to think children have fully developed brains and are able to discern the difference between unhealthy fake porn and reality. This a scientifically, objectively wrong stance.
Even if they can’t discern they could at least have the information on what’s healhy and what’s not. Without sex-ed they’re risking getting bad information and even if their abilities to discern start getting better they’d have a corrupted baseline of what is normal/healthy.
I'm not arguing to do away with sex-ed. I'm saying it's not a replacement for some sort of enforcement of the law to keep underage kids from accessing porn easily.
<t's that easy access to porn is unhealthy for a developing brain.
That seems like a claim that needs a citation. Pretty much everyone under the age of 35 has had 'easy access' to porn in their formative years. Are we all mentally ill?
That seems like a claim that needs a citation. Pretty much everyone under the age of 35 has had 'easy access' to porn in their formative years. Are we all mentally ill?
You might want to look up statistics on the explosive rise of mental illness diagnoses in the last 2 decades or so. (Hint: it's gone up exponentially with unrestricted access to certain things)
Some people are able to overcome child abuse and live a life without any mental health issues, does that mean that child abuse isn't wrong?
Some people are able to overcome child abuse and live a life without any mental health issues, does that mean that child abuse isn't wrong?
Are we now linking pornography to being the source of a rise in mental illness? No other possible factors?
Nope. Strawman. We're talking about it being ONE of the factors. All of them are however linked to easily obtained dopamine hits on the brain and what happens to a child that's exposed to that constantly (hint: it's pretty similar to drug addiction). There are plenty of studies linked directly to porn's effects on not fully developed brains.
You need to focus the conversation on underage kids as well. We're not discussing restrictions for adults. We as a society have obviously decided pedophilia is unacceptable because it's mentally damaging to kids who cannot yet conceive the implications of what they're doing, you ought to be able extrapolate from that and logically conclude unfettered underage porn access is also mentally damaging. This isn't some massive leap.
If you want to argue that a certain law is the best way control it, I can understand that. However, I cannot wrap my head around any argument that tries to say allowing kids to just view porn unrestricted is fine.
You need to focus the conversation on underage kids as well. We're not discussing restrictions for adults. We as a society have obviously decided pedophilia is unacceptable because it's mentally damaging to kids who cannot yet conceive the implications of what they're doing, you ought to be able extrapolate from that and logically conclude unfettered underage porn access is also mentally damaging. This isn't some massive leap.
If you want to argue that a certain law is the best way control it, I can understand that. However, I cannot wrap my head around any argument that tries to say allowing kids to just view porn unrestricted is fine.
> This isn't some massive leap.
I mean, if you think that porn viewing is basically rape, you're making a pretty large leap here. I hope you attack children viewing violent content with the same fervor because I guess viewing an activity is the same as participating in it?
I mean, if you think that porn viewing is basically rape, you're making a pretty large leap here. I hope you attack children viewing violent content with the same fervor because I guess viewing an activity is the same as participating in it?
Sorry, 'look it up' isn't a citation. I'm going to assume your claims are baseless.
This isn't a research site and I'm not your professor. Do your own research. I'm not spending my time to convince of something so obvious.
Are you really going to sit there and try to argue that unfettered porn access is good for a child? Find me a citation that proves that please.
Are you really going to sit there and try to argue that unfettered porn access is good for a child? Find me a citation that proves that please.
> I'm not spending my time to convince of something so obvious.
Here is the tell that shows you have absolutely no actual data or information to support your claim.
You aren't my professor, but you are making absurd, huge claims. You should expect to be challenged and show your sources. Just because you made something up in your head and feel its obvious, that doesn't make it true.
Here is the tell that shows you have absolutely no actual data or information to support your claim.
You aren't my professor, but you are making absurd, huge claims. You should expect to be challenged and show your sources. Just because you made something up in your head and feel its obvious, that doesn't make it true.
These are some bizarre false equivalences
What's bizarre about saying children shouldn't have unfettered access to porn and it's bad for their mental health?
Is your argument here that it's a good thing for them to be accessing it as much and often as they want? You really don't think that causes ANY mental issues? I'd really like an answer here, because unless you're 100% on the let them look at all the porn they can get there hands on.... well I guess it's not so bizarre then is it?
Is your argument here that it's a good thing for them to be accessing it as much and often as they want? You really don't think that causes ANY mental issues? I'd really like an answer here, because unless you're 100% on the let them look at all the porn they can get there hands on.... well I guess it's not so bizarre then is it?
Trying to limit children's access to internet porn by making porn sites verify ID probably won't be too effective, because a significant fraction of internet porn is on sites that are not in the US (about 40% in 2013 [1]).
If this is something a state wants to do it might be more effective to come at it from the other end. Parents can install parental control software on their home computers and on their kid's devices. Schools can do similar on their computers.
Places that provide computers for public internet access would probably need to do age checks.
Kids could still get access to porn the traditional way of course. Make friends with kids whose parents are less restrictive and get them to get porn for you. That could be handled the way it has always been--declare the other kids bad influences and forbid your kids from seeing them.
It could also be handled by making it so that if your kids give other kids porn without their parents permission its treated the same as if your kids are giving alcohol to other underage kids. I.e., it is a failure of the parent's duty to supervise their child and they might be fined.
[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/1383/top-10-adult-website-hos...
If this is something a state wants to do it might be more effective to come at it from the other end. Parents can install parental control software on their home computers and on their kid's devices. Schools can do similar on their computers.
Places that provide computers for public internet access would probably need to do age checks.
Kids could still get access to porn the traditional way of course. Make friends with kids whose parents are less restrictive and get them to get porn for you. That could be handled the way it has always been--declare the other kids bad influences and forbid your kids from seeing them.
It could also be handled by making it so that if your kids give other kids porn without their parents permission its treated the same as if your kids are giving alcohol to other underage kids. I.e., it is a failure of the parent's duty to supervise their child and they might be fined.
[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/1383/top-10-adult-website-hos...
Why am I not surprised that the "think of the children" line comes up with everything except gun control with inherently authoritarian measures in favor of tracking and control?
Yep. This is always how it goes. Definitely one of my "I can't believe we still have to do this" politics things.
There is no state that allows someone under 18 to buy a firearm.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/19/us/virginia-school-shooti...
(of course the kid didn't buy it, but the considerations are pretty similar for people preventing children from accessing other things)
(of course the kid didn't buy it, but the considerations are pretty similar for people preventing children from accessing other things)
Ok, let's look at the equivalency here since you seem intent on comparing porn access to gun access.
Let's drop all FFL requirements for firearm purchases and we'll just let people click a tick box on a website saying they're over 18. After that we'll deliver the firearm straight to there front door.
All that's being asked here is that we actually ENFORCE the 18 year old age limit for porn.
Also, many states have laws that require gun owners to store their guns properly etc. and a kid just grabbing an improperly stored gun is illegal, therefore punishable by law.
There is no repercussion for illegal porn access and no onus on the porn provider to stop children from accessing it.
Let's drop all FFL requirements for firearm purchases and we'll just let people click a tick box on a website saying they're over 18. After that we'll deliver the firearm straight to there front door.
All that's being asked here is that we actually ENFORCE the 18 year old age limit for porn.
Also, many states have laws that require gun owners to store their guns properly etc. and a kid just grabbing an improperly stored gun is illegal, therefore punishable by law.
There is no repercussion for illegal porn access and no onus on the porn provider to stop children from accessing it.
That's not a particularly good position.
There is no state that allows someone under 21 to buy alcohol/booze, but somehow teenagers do actually find alcohol, how very peculiar.
Furthermore, with a lower limit to 18, there's still an overlap with seniors who turn 18 soon before graduating, thus the argument in that regard is not particularly convincing either.
If you peruse through [1], you will find that in a non insignificant number of cases, the perpetrator was an adult. This then suggests that in the remaining cases the perpetrator was a teenager or a child, thus rendering the argument not particularly convincing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th...
There is no state that allows someone under 21 to buy alcohol/booze, but somehow teenagers do actually find alcohol, how very peculiar.
Furthermore, with a lower limit to 18, there's still an overlap with seniors who turn 18 soon before graduating, thus the argument in that regard is not particularly convincing either.
If you peruse through [1], you will find that in a non insignificant number of cases, the perpetrator was an adult. This then suggests that in the remaining cases the perpetrator was a teenager or a child, thus rendering the argument not particularly convincing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th...
So, you're telling me there are laws and enforcement in place for alcohol etc. but people are illegally skirting those laws. What happens to these people when they get caught? What happens to the store that sold the underage person alcohol? I shouldn't have to tell you they're fined and/or their license gets pulled.
How does this support your stance on unrestricted porn access again? Requiring an ID for porn would be equivalent to requiring an ID for alcohol would it not?
Let's look at firearms as well since you seem to really think you've proven something with your statements. What state can I click a website check box saying I'm 18 and have as may firearms as I want show up in my house?
The idea that some people get around laws is never a justification to just do away with laws or not have them in the first place. This is even more true when it comes to children, our society is ENTIRELY built on the agreement that under 18 is not an adult and they do not have full rights or access to whatever they want. There is a good scientific reason for this.
How does this support your stance on unrestricted porn access again? Requiring an ID for porn would be equivalent to requiring an ID for alcohol would it not?
Let's look at firearms as well since you seem to really think you've proven something with your statements. What state can I click a website check box saying I'm 18 and have as may firearms as I want show up in my house?
The idea that some people get around laws is never a justification to just do away with laws or not have them in the first place. This is even more true when it comes to children, our society is ENTIRELY built on the agreement that under 18 is not an adult and they do not have full rights or access to whatever they want. There is a good scientific reason for this.
I merely pointed at the hypocrisy of using the line "think of the children" to enact laws that limit and control everyone else for issues that cause significantly less harm than guns which indicates that the goal is not to protect children, but to enforce certain beliefs and exert more control.
> How does this support your stance on unrestricted porn access again? Requiring an ID for porn would be equivalent to requiring an ID for alcohol would it not?
No because in the former the website will be forced to share my details with the government, I will be in a database, with no way of removing myself from there. I can also show a fake ID for alcohol if I wish to.
The difference here is the tracking, and I can't trust that my data will not be logged.
consequences.
> Let's look at firearms as well since you seem to really think you've proven something with your statements. What state can I click a website check box saying I'm 18 and have as may firearms as I want show up in my house?
I didn't intend on proving anything except that that argument, meaning that no firearms are sold to 18 year olds legally, is bogus with respect to shootings carried via assault weapons.
What you appear not to grasp is the difference in the order of magnitude of the consequences.
Having access to guns with intention to do harm is, by all means, not equivalent to having access to porn unless the person is actively seeking for ways to commit harm, at which point they are well into Tor.
> The idea that some people get around laws is never a justification to just do away with laws or not have them in the first place. This is even more true when it comes to children, our society is ENTIRELY built on the agreement that under 18 is not an adult and they do not have full rights or access to whatever they want. There is a good scientific reason for this.
I have never claimed anything to the contrary.
However, you made my point quite well without realizing it. I merely replaced a few words of a segment in your comment, and appended a clause.
What state can I purchase an assault rifle from a legal shop and have as many assault rifles as I want sold to me, if assault rifles are completely banned from the country?
You agreed, right there, that laws should exist even if people do seek for ways to go around them, and that making it harder to do a bad thing works. It follows then that reducing access and imposing further restrictions on ownership will make access significantly harder for bad actors, be it children or otherwise.
> How does this support your stance on unrestricted porn access again? Requiring an ID for porn would be equivalent to requiring an ID for alcohol would it not?
No because in the former the website will be forced to share my details with the government, I will be in a database, with no way of removing myself from there. I can also show a fake ID for alcohol if I wish to.
The difference here is the tracking, and I can't trust that my data will not be logged.
consequences.
> Let's look at firearms as well since you seem to really think you've proven something with your statements. What state can I click a website check box saying I'm 18 and have as may firearms as I want show up in my house?
I didn't intend on proving anything except that that argument, meaning that no firearms are sold to 18 year olds legally, is bogus with respect to shootings carried via assault weapons.
What you appear not to grasp is the difference in the order of magnitude of the consequences.
Having access to guns with intention to do harm is, by all means, not equivalent to having access to porn unless the person is actively seeking for ways to commit harm, at which point they are well into Tor.
> The idea that some people get around laws is never a justification to just do away with laws or not have them in the first place. This is even more true when it comes to children, our society is ENTIRELY built on the agreement that under 18 is not an adult and they do not have full rights or access to whatever they want. There is a good scientific reason for this.
I have never claimed anything to the contrary.
However, you made my point quite well without realizing it. I merely replaced a few words of a segment in your comment, and appended a clause.
What state can I purchase an assault rifle from a legal shop and have as many assault rifles as I want sold to me, if assault rifles are completely banned from the country?
You agreed, right there, that laws should exist even if people do seek for ways to go around them, and that making it harder to do a bad thing works. It follows then that reducing access and imposing further restrictions on ownership will make access significantly harder for bad actors, be it children or otherwise.
I might be wrong because the source ( https://metro.co.uk/2018/02/16/age-can-buy-gun-america-73181... ) is not super fresh (2018) , but:
" (while the age for rifle is federally 18...) Exceptions to this include if the gun is to be used for specified activities including employment, ranching, farming, target practice and hunting. "
and
" For example, in Vermont it’s legal to sell a handgun or rifle to someone over 16. In Maine, Alaska, Minnesota or New York State you can sell a rifle to someone over 16. In Minnesota, as long as it’s not in the city, you can sell a rifle to a 14-year-old without parental consent. "
Seems confirmed by ( https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/minimum-age-to-pur.... ):
" Age 14 or 15 and has a firearms safety certificate "
" (while the age for rifle is federally 18...) Exceptions to this include if the gun is to be used for specified activities including employment, ranching, farming, target practice and hunting. "
and
" For example, in Vermont it’s legal to sell a handgun or rifle to someone over 16. In Maine, Alaska, Minnesota or New York State you can sell a rifle to someone over 16. In Minnesota, as long as it’s not in the city, you can sell a rifle to a 14-year-old without parental consent. "
Seems confirmed by ( https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/minimum-age-to-pur.... ):
" Age 14 or 15 and has a firearms safety certificate "
What's you point?
All you're doing is showing me there are restrictions are access to firearms and a plethora of enforcement/laws saying how younger kids can use them.
If your point is to say we don't need any restrictions on porn access you kinda failed.
Lastly, I don't think shooting a firearm for fun or hunting is at all equivalent to unrestricted access to porn that has proven to rewire young brains in a negative way.
All you're doing is showing me there are restrictions are access to firearms and a plethora of enforcement/laws saying how younger kids can use them.
If your point is to say we don't need any restrictions on porn access you kinda failed.
Lastly, I don't think shooting a firearm for fun or hunting is at all equivalent to unrestricted access to porn that has proven to rewire young brains in a negative way.
These porn apoligists sound "unhealthy".
"Think of the children" has been one of the primary justifications for gun control as of late, with firearm injuries being one of the top causes of death among people under 20.
What I miss in these kinds of discussions is this: Porn portrays a very distorted view of sexuality. It often objectifies and marginalizes women, portraying them as mere objects for male pleasure. Men frequently dominate women in these movies, perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes.
Now, imagine a minor growing up with exposure to these images. How will this affect their behavior towards girls and their understanding of sexuality?
Pornography often portrays an unrealistic and distorted view of sex and relationships, which can lead to unhealthy and unrealistic expectations. Limiting access to porn can help promote a healthier and more realistic view of sexuality.
So yes, I strongly believe we should limit access to porn.
Now, imagine a minor growing up with exposure to these images. How will this affect their behavior towards girls and their understanding of sexuality?
Pornography often portrays an unrealistic and distorted view of sex and relationships, which can lead to unhealthy and unrealistic expectations. Limiting access to porn can help promote a healthier and more realistic view of sexuality.
So yes, I strongly believe we should limit access to porn.
I would even say that I can see no reason creating/distributing/etc. of pornography should be legal at all.
That's how I feel about the Fast and the Furious movies.
I've never been moved in the slightest by the trailers for the franchise, and so never bothered watching them.
"Saw" on the other hand? For that franchise, I find even the adverts disturbing… though not as disturbing as the logical conclusion that a significant number of people must be responding to those adverts with "that looks interesting, I desire to spend two hours looking at cinematic footage of the content that this image or clip only hints at".
"Saw" on the other hand? For that franchise, I find even the adverts disturbing… though not as disturbing as the logical conclusion that a significant number of people must be responding to those adverts with "that looks interesting, I desire to spend two hours looking at cinematic footage of the content that this image or clip only hints at".
> Men frequently dominate women in these movies, perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes.
As a lifelong homosexual, I strongly disagree with your notion that all porn promotes harmful stereotypes against women. In fact, I would argue that 100% of the porn I've watched in recent memory includes no forms of gender-based power dynamic.
> Now, imagine a minor growing up with exposure to these images. How will this affect their behavior towards girls and their understanding of sexuality?
This is the job of a parent. If parents don't want to acknowledge that their children are watching porn and being exposed to ideas that are harmful (for whatever you deem harmful), the parents are negligent in teaching the kids to be respectful, empathetic young adults.
> Limiting access to porn can help promote a healthier and more realistic view of sexuality.
Banning porn doesn't stop this. In fact, it makes the problem worse! You can't stop people from making or covertly distributing porn. It's physically impossible without turning off the internet. All you're accomplishing is making the problem less visible and more taboo to discuss. See: decades of "the war on drugs"
As well-intentioned as I think you are, there's zero evidence to suggest limiting access to porn will do any good at all and mountains of evidence to suggest the contrary. And all to avoid having difficult conversations about sexuality with minors.
As a lifelong homosexual, I strongly disagree with your notion that all porn promotes harmful stereotypes against women. In fact, I would argue that 100% of the porn I've watched in recent memory includes no forms of gender-based power dynamic.
> Now, imagine a minor growing up with exposure to these images. How will this affect their behavior towards girls and their understanding of sexuality?
This is the job of a parent. If parents don't want to acknowledge that their children are watching porn and being exposed to ideas that are harmful (for whatever you deem harmful), the parents are negligent in teaching the kids to be respectful, empathetic young adults.
> Limiting access to porn can help promote a healthier and more realistic view of sexuality.
Banning porn doesn't stop this. In fact, it makes the problem worse! You can't stop people from making or covertly distributing porn. It's physically impossible without turning off the internet. All you're accomplishing is making the problem less visible and more taboo to discuss. See: decades of "the war on drugs"
As well-intentioned as I think you are, there's zero evidence to suggest limiting access to porn will do any good at all and mountains of evidence to suggest the contrary. And all to avoid having difficult conversations about sexuality with minors.
Or we should make some good porn. It baffles me to no extent why there are no instructional videos on how to improve your sex lives.
Porn shows unrealistic sex and it’s bad that people learn from it? Then make porn that shows how to have better sex.
Porn shows unrealistic sex and it’s bad that people learn from it? Then make porn that shows how to have better sex.
Can’t wait to see what Little Rock does with a list of Arkansans who visit LGBT+ sites.
Yeah, I suspect tracking down "sexual deviants" is the true motivation behind laws like this. There will probably be state mandated "corrective procedures" in the future.
If you want this to get shot down, just hire some people with a fake French accents to make commercials praising the good people of Arkansas for being more progressively European.
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20230207-france-to-introduce-ne...
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20230207-france-to-introduce-ne...
Another instance of the digital ID meme. Obscenity and "Think of the children" is a tried and true strategy.
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_INSIGHT_REPORT_Digital%20I...
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_INSIGHT_REPORT_Digital%20I...
Digital id is dangerous if mandatory. There are multiple materials already restricted on the internet.
I guess inflation is solved if this is what they're thinking about.
Arkansas can't do much about national/global inflation individually, but they're also 49th outta 50 states in health care, 41st in education, 41st in economy, 43rd in infrastructure, and 48th in crime, so it's not like they've shown themselves to be particularly capable in matters they do have some influence either
Give them some credit, Arkansas is #2 in teen pregnancy! Mississippi just edged them out of #1 in 2020.
That's one way to increase population growth.
Porn is bad for kids. But sure how good the execution on this might be but I approve of the sentiment.
The right-wing morality police wont be happy until we all live in a christian nationalist theocracy. We are living in scary times.
The vagueness of the bill is a feature, not a bug. Vague laws exist so the enforcers can target their enemies rather than have a fair execution of the law.
The vagueness of the bill is a feature, not a bug. Vague laws exist so the enforcers can target their enemies rather than have a fair execution of the law.
>The right-wing morality police
This topic pops up all over the world regardless of political leaning https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34781021
This topic pops up all over the world regardless of political leaning https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34781021
Currently happening in Canada, too: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-senators-vo...
However I don't think it's accurate to say "regardless of political leaning" - just scratch the surface of the lobbying groups (and age verification companies!) backing these bills and you'll see it's conservative Christians all the way down.
However I don't think it's accurate to say "regardless of political leaning" - just scratch the surface of the lobbying groups (and age verification companies!) backing these bills and you'll see it's conservative Christians all the way down.
Jean Noel Barrot is a member of a centre-right party in France though.
You're presenting a logical fallacy. Attack the argument, not the individual making it.
Who is proposing it is what is being talked about here.
No, it's not. You're deviating from what's being talked about to present an appeal to authority type fallacy.
I'm paraphrasing:
> cmh89: The right wing is trying to get this through to lead us towards a christian nationalist theocracy.
> haunter: This is happening in France which is not left leaning.
> cmh89: The person proposing this in France is right leaning.
> DrThunder: We're not talking about who is doing this.
But that is literally what cmh89 and haunter are discussing here. I would agree your argument could be applicable to cmh89's first statement, but at this point in the thread the very argument being had is around who is proposing this and what their motives are.
> cmh89: The right wing is trying to get this through to lead us towards a christian nationalist theocracy.
> haunter: This is happening in France which is not left leaning.
> cmh89: The person proposing this in France is right leaning.
> DrThunder: We're not talking about who is doing this.
But that is literally what cmh89 and haunter are discussing here. I would agree your argument could be applicable to cmh89's first statement, but at this point in the thread the very argument being had is around who is proposing this and what their motives are.
Wild garden path sentence: Who is proposing it is? What is being talked about here?
> The right-wing morality police wont be happy until we all live in a christian nationalist theocracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_pornography#...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_pornography#...
That's a cute but silly comparison, how many feminists in the Arkansas house backed this bill? You're also assuming all porn is heterosexual... Next?
The point is that we should all be more concerned with the question of whether it is a problem than whether our favorite bad guys think so.
It's a problem because people who are supposed to be focused on the betterment of their lousy state are instead engaged in a culture war. That's what makes them bad guys... and that fact that anything Arkansas implements will be bypassed in seconds with a VPN. So why waste the Arkansas tax dollars debating this stupid idea when they're near dead last in healthcare and education?
Sounds like they aren't the only ones engaged in a culture war.
They're legislating their culture war. You don't see the difference? Sad.
It's just democracy. People vote. SCOTUS ruled that there is an obscenity exception to the First Amendment. Given the composition of this Court it will likely be left to the states for the foreseeable future. You should probably use a VPN or leave Arkansas if it is a critical issue for you. Like you said, VPN is probably the better option except for the tax dollars thing.
So let's waste additional resources on legislation that will never hold and can't viably be enforced. You're almost there...
Democracy is messy but better than the alternatives.
While this may have been a fair representation of feminist academia 30+ years ago, these days it has long been fringe. And certainly irrelevant to this specific issue that we are currently discussing.
[deleted]
this 'P' product is addictive and should have some kind of safety regulations IMHO
I think we do need to do something to keep children away from it. Yes, this is mostly on the parents but there has to be some lawful consequence put on these sites. I'm not sure that Arkansas has the best method here, but at least they're proposing something.
This is not just a right-wing Christian morality stance. There's a myriad of studies showing the increasingly harmful affects of letting young brains just access porn whenever they want. It rewires their brains in some pretty negative ways. This along with social media, and the trend of just letting small children play on tablets all day long need to stop.
This is not just a right-wing Christian morality stance. There's a myriad of studies showing the increasingly harmful affects of letting young brains just access porn whenever they want. It rewires their brains in some pretty negative ways. This along with social media, and the trend of just letting small children play on tablets all day long need to stop.
I'm conflicted on this.
Online porn is way to easy to access online, and there's no way it's good for children. And before I get called a puritan, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about sites like onlyfans or even a mainstream production company likes brazzers. There is some truly horrific porn out there that is a single google search away. You can watch women being beaten, gagged, urinated on, made to vomit. You can find upskirt videos, revenge porn, "consensual nonconsent" that really makes you wonder if the women involved knew what they were consenting to. You can even find beastiality, which I thought was illegal! Truly disgusting things that children should not be able to access are readily available for anyone of any age to see through a google search.
That being said, I don't trust porn sites to handle IDs safely, and I would never want to give mine to them. But maybe that's a good thing if it keeps people out and hurts the disgusting people who produce this stuff.
Online porn is way to easy to access online, and there's no way it's good for children. And before I get called a puritan, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about sites like onlyfans or even a mainstream production company likes brazzers. There is some truly horrific porn out there that is a single google search away. You can watch women being beaten, gagged, urinated on, made to vomit. You can find upskirt videos, revenge porn, "consensual nonconsent" that really makes you wonder if the women involved knew what they were consenting to. You can even find beastiality, which I thought was illegal! Truly disgusting things that children should not be able to access are readily available for anyone of any age to see through a google search.
That being said, I don't trust porn sites to handle IDs safely, and I would never want to give mine to them. But maybe that's a good thing if it keeps people out and hurts the disgusting people who produce this stuff.
Yes I agree, it’s not just porn but very sick stuff out there. I think sex ed is the solution, young people need to know that disgusting stuff is not normal and how to avoid it. The dangers lie in monkey see monkey do type of behavior and the behavior gets normalized.
Having said that, requiring ID is not a good solution and likely not to work
Having said that, requiring ID is not a good solution and likely not to work
You're talking about having an adult conversation with a fully developed brain. Your logic doesn't apply to children.
What you're suggesting doesn't fully work on a young undeveloped brain. This is the equivalency of telling a teenager that drugs are bad. Kids, especially teenagers aren't rational. This is why we have laws in place that don't treat them like adults until they're at least 18 and sometimes 21.
The idea that you're going to just sit them down and re-educate them appropriately when there's essentially unlimited access to this stuff is pure silliness.
What you're suggesting doesn't fully work on a young undeveloped brain. This is the equivalency of telling a teenager that drugs are bad. Kids, especially teenagers aren't rational. This is why we have laws in place that don't treat them like adults until they're at least 18 and sometimes 21.
The idea that you're going to just sit them down and re-educate them appropriately when there's essentially unlimited access to this stuff is pure silliness.
Seems like only mainstream production companies would bother adhering to the regulations, meaning all of those other examples would remain available to everyone. That'd increase the ratio of freely available "bad" porn to "good" porn.
Perhaps there are good intentions behind this law --although I suspect it comes from pressure by hate groups -- however this is not the way. Seems like involving parents and educating kids is the best option.
Perhaps there are good intentions behind this law --although I suspect it comes from pressure by hate groups -- however this is not the way. Seems like involving parents and educating kids is the best option.
As a side note, I would love to be a fly on the wall when they try to legislate this on sites like and similar to 4chan. I suspect Tor onion sites will suddenly become very popular despite their slowness.
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34726754